KFilePlacesModelTest

[David Faure]

On Saturday 07 May 2016 19:50:36 Michael Pyne wrote:
> On Sat, May 7, 2016 14:33:53 David Faure wrote:
> > The thing I wonder is... does it really make sense to have a model with
> > random ordering? Isn't it a problem for users if their visible list of
> > places is different between every run? Or am I missing something and the
> > different order in the test isn't actually user visible?
> 
> Is it trying to test that the entries are present in a *specific* order, or 
> simply that the entries will be maintained in a constant order between 
> serialization/deserialization? If it's the latter then we could instead use 
> whatever the existing order is in one call as the expected order for the 
> second call.
> 
> Also, if we're just trying to show that a specific set of entries would be 
> present, couldn't we sort the expected and the actual lists before doing the 
> comparison, to make it independent of order? In other words we could break the 
> test into two: 1) ensure order is properly saved and loaded, and 2) ensure 
> right items are present independent of their order.

For the record, this is now fixed in solid and kio.
The random ordering came from QList->QSet->QList, which I managed
to simplify to avoid the QSet step.

Giuseppe: it wasn't about two sets, but about a single intermediary qset,
and then checking the final QList with a fixed "expected" list. Since everything
is fixed upfront (the initial QList comes from parsing a test file), it looked
like this could be made reliable - but somehow on two different machines
with the exact same code (AFAICS), I was getting a different order.
Oh well, doesn't matter anymore :-)

Thanks for the input everyone.

-- 
David Faure, faure at kde.org, http://www.davidfaure.fr
Working on KDE Frameworks 5