Review Request 112772: Create an ecm_mark_as_autotest macro

[Aleix Pol Gonzalez]

> On Sept. 17, 2013, 6:26 p.m., Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > The macro does more than the name implies, additionally to marking it as test it also actually adds the test.
> > So I'd prefer a different name.
> > 
> > Having said that, the CMakeLists.txt in the various tests/ subdirs in KDE frameworks look all quite similar, they more or less all feature a quite similar macro, foo_unit_tests(). Maybe a more advanced function can be written which can be used in all those places ?
> 
> Alexander Richardson wrote:
>     I just played around with adding a new macro to replace the <FRAMEWORK_NAME>_UNIT_TESTS macros which are in every autotests directory: http://paste.kde.org/p11adaa09/
>     
>     Could something like this be considered for ecm? If so I will add some documentation and create a review request for ecm.
> 
> Aleix Pol Gonzalez wrote:
>     Neundorf: well, the difference between mark_as_test and mark_as_autotest is that it marks it as a test. Actually I think that mark_as_test is in fact a bit misleading, because it's not marking it as a test, only making it build as a test.
>     
>     About foo_unit_tests, I don't hate the idea, but then I don't think it pays off that much, if we go with that, we can just keep kde4_add_unit_test just as well.
> 
> Alexander Neundorf wrote:
>     Alex: IMO yes.
>     Aleix: if the function from Alex R. is generic enough to be usable by non KDE-projects, I think it would be useful to have in ecm. Still, having two macros ecm_mark_as_test() and ecm_mark_as_autotest() would IMO not be good, since they sound quite similar but do different things. I'd prefer a more powerful function which does more than just wrap two calls.
>     
>     But that's just my opinion, I leave it up to Stephen.

Meanwhile, Richardson can you open a proper review request with the other macro? Should I do it?


- Aleix


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/112772/#review40240
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Sept. 17, 2013, 12:35 p.m., Aleix Pol Gonzalez wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/112772/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Sept. 17, 2013, 12:35 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Build System and KDE Frameworks.
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Creates a function that will define a unit test with the project name (like it's being done in KF5) and calls ecm_mark_as_test.
> 
> This should help simplify the tests creation that at the moment is quite verbose.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   modules/ECMMarkAsTest.cmake f1e53e4 
> 
> Diff: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/112772/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Ported some tests in KF5, it worked.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Aleix Pol Gonzalez
> 
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-frameworks-devel/attachments/20130919/ec2cfebc/attachment.html>