End of 2016 update on PyKF5 bindings

[Stephen Kelly]

Shaheed Haque wrote:

> HI,
> 
> On 6 January 2017 at 00:33, Stephen Kelly <steveire at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Shaheed Haque wrote:
>>
>>>> It is my intention to add that and other databases which are currently
>>>> 'missing', when
>>>>
>>>>  * We have some tests for them in the ECM repo
>>>>  * We want to add bindings to a framework (in a KDE repo) which
>>>>  requires
>>>> them
>>>
>>> To your first point, the bulk generator/compiler tools *are* test
>>> tools as far as KF5 is concerned...they happen not to fit the
>>> repository-aligned model because for my present purposes, I want to be
>>> able to easily run them en-masse across /usr/include/KF5.
>>
>> Yes. I consider having unit tests in the ECM repo (and versioned with the
>> scripts) essential.
> 
> Sure, that makes perfect sense. But we should not confuse the goodness
> of such tests with the need to assure a broad swathe of code can be
> reliably processed. 

Are you familiar with the saying 'take care of the pennies and the pounds 
will take care of themselves'? It applies to software too. 

Any problematic case you find in trying to process the 'broad swathe' can be 
reduced to a testcase in ECM. This is a very basic principle of software 
testing and quality.

>> Regarding my second point above, my next target is to add bindings to the
>> KDE ki18n repo. That will require adding the ModuleCodeDb and
>> MethodCodeDb to ECM. I'm working on autotest extensions for those.
> 
> Again, having self contained tests for that is fine. But my point is
> that the ModuleCodeDb and MethodCodeDb code you need is already there
> precisely because I was able to determine the need for it using the
> bulk processing approach.

Yes, you got quite far in determining requirements. Determining requirements 
is not the same thing as creating maintainable, unit tested software, 
however.

> Perhaps I was not sufficiently clear in
> https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-bindings/2017-January/008391.html.
> Your commit c05dcfa4c4f39448323c4f52fbb534867a96747c takes a subset of
> one of the commits in the branch that I consider a work-in-progress. 

I see, sorry about that.

> I have rewritten the history of that branch multiple times in the last
> days, and I have no idea which of those you took. For clarity, I would
> like to get '759 and '763 merged, and then I will queue up the other
> changes for review.

I left some information on 

 https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/129760/

Can you review it and then check your review requests to see which ones can 
be closed?

Thanks,

Steve.