The state of the unit tests

[Andreas Pakulat]

On 30.05.10 11:31:45, Esben Mose Hansen wrote:
> In my humble opinion, failing unit tests and especially completely broken unit 
> tests are worse than no unit test at all, since it discourages further 
> testing.

FACK. Unfortunately working on unit-tests is not very compelling and for
some of the relevant codebases there's nobody active in them at all/has
the necessary time.

> Can we improve this situation? Some suggestions:
> 
> 1. disabling and/or expect-fail failing tests

I don't see how that helps, the tests are still failing/broken.

> 2. some sort of automatic fingering of which checkin breaks previously passing 
> tests.

That requires writing a tool which updates kdevplatform and kdevelop
clones to roughly the same revision. Also 

> 3. some effort to make tests that depends on externalities (I'm guessing at 
> least vcs + gdb depends heavily on such) to check for such externalities and 
> replaces the test with an expect fail.

Gdb depends on a gdb, vcs doesn't depend on anything, svn-tests depend
on the svn libs. This are all dependencies we also have for the full app
so are not a problem. The one depending on user-interaction has a fix in
a pending merge-request.

Andreas

-- 
Keep it short for pithy sake.