D26202: WIP: Refactor KConfigXT

[Tomaz Canabrava]

tcanabrava marked 22 inline comments as done.
tcanabrava added inline comments.

INLINE COMMENTS

> dfaure wrote in kconfigcompiler_test.cpp:129
> Why did you remove this? It's just a more user-friendly version of the QVERIFY on the next line, so it can't possibly have failed while the next line passes...

the text was really not friendly, it was a big blob of diff content pasted on screen. Considering that the next line will also fail I replaced this by saving the diff file on disk, this way we can actually look at the file that failed and take the time to understand the error.

> dfaure wrote in KConfigCodeGenerator.h:91
> urgh, a public variable

that was a honest mistake :)

> dfaure wrote in KConfigCommonStructs.h:14
> done already?

No, there's a struct SignalArguments and a struct Param that are  basically the same thing. A name and a Type. Still in the TODO.

> dfaure wrote in KConfigHeaderGenerator.h:73
> I thought most editors took care of that, these days...

Kate / KDevelop here. I'm manually adding them.

> dfaure wrote in KConfigSourceGenerator.cpp:40
> remove (or switch to qCDebug)

removed, those are temporaries debug calls that I used to be sure things are as supposed.

> dfaure wrote in kconfig_compiler.cpp:753
> const ... ?

that was a bit harder than I want, but done. Inside of the code generation there was code that manipulated the ParseResult. I think this is one of the good spots that show that this rewrite is really needed.

REPOSITORY
  R237 KConfig

REVISION DETAIL
  https://phabricator.kde.org/D26202

To: tcanabrava, #frameworks, ervin, bport, dfaure
Cc: bport, ngraham, kde-frameworks-devel, LeGast00n, GB_2, michaelh, bruns
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-frameworks-devel/attachments/20200112/2305b107/attachment-0001.html>