Fwd: Re: Switching to QtTestLib for unit tests

[Brad Hards]

On Wednesday 07 September 2005 20:00 pm, David Faure wrote:
> Moving qttestlib to kdesupport only means a higher percentage of KDE
> developers won't bother to write or check the unit tests in kdelibs. I
> don't think unit tests are optional. They are vital, especially for kdelibs
> development.
I don't think kdesupport is appropriate either (because we've moved away from 
"kdesupport as a mirror of other people's work" to "kdesupport as a home for 
tools that we  use, but aren't part of KDE proper"). 

I also agree that unit tests are vital for all of our libs.

However I don't think that kdelibs is the right place for QtTestLib. Should I 
import another copy into kdesupport/qca for the unit tests for Qt Crypto 
Architecture? Will kdepim have a copy for its unit tests? Or kdegames, or 
whatever else needs test support?

Can I suggest that it go into trunk/qttestlib-copy, and all the modules that 
might need it just put up a big ./configure (or whatever it is in 
bksys+scons) time warning if it isn't available. That will at least flag the 
testing once, which you don't get if you import a copy.

When it comes down to it, writing unit tests is a professionalism issue, not 
an availability of tools issue. If people are too lazy to install QtTestLib, 
then writing tests isn't all that likely.

> Honestly, I don't see a problem with a GPL lib in kdelibs, especially when
> it's not GPL-only, i.e. it doesn't prevent commercial development.
IMHO, it isn't a licensing issue - it is a code duplication issue.

Brad
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20050908/32fce850/attachment.sig>