tests building

[Maximilian Kossick]

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Ian Monroe <ian.monroe at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Maximilian Kossick
> <maximilian.kossick at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Ian Monroe <ian.monroe at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Maximilian Kossick
>>> <maximilian.kossick at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> Those two errors can be easily fixed by providing dummy
>>>> implementations that don't do anything in the
>>>> CollectionLocationTest.cpp
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure whether the linker will start complaining about
>>>> SvgHandler being missing
>>>>
>>>
>>> Shouldn't we just link to libamarok? Dummy implementations of random
>>> functions sounds a bit hacky to me.
>>
>> Well, they are tests, so being a bit hacky is not an issue.
>>
>> Linking to libamarok should be avoided as we cannot really control the
>> side effects. In the current state of Amarok it is very easy to
>> accidentally start all other components of amarok (main window,
>> collection manager, engine controller, and so on...). That defeats the
>> point of a unit test (and makes it horribly slow)
>
> Well I guess I was worried about it being hard to maintain more then
> anything. And also inaccurate.
>
> Ian
>

What was inaccurate?