The state of the unit tests

[Esben Mose Hansen]

On Sunday 30 May 2010 18:47:59 Niko Sams wrote:
> >> FACK.
> > 
> > I don't think I know that word, and wikipedia doesn't either :o)
> 
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_von_Abk%C3%BCrzungen_%28Netzjargon%29 :D

Silly me, not looking at the German wikipedia :o) Thanks

> 
> >> > 1. disabling and/or expect-fail failing tests
> >> 
> >> I don't see how that helps, the tests are still failing/broken.
> > 
> > It would help in this way: If I run make test and something fails, I
> > probably screwed up something. That is a big help. If a lot of tests are
> > failing before I begin, you'll have to dig to see if I broke the test,
> > or if it was already broken.
> 
> I agree. All tests should always pass. If one test fails there are tree
> options: - fix it
> - mark as expect-fail and fix it later
> - if it won't be fixed delete it

Exactly. Let's try to get to that state if at all possible.

> 
> >> > 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
> > 
> > wouldn't git pull do that? :) I was more worried about the getting the
> > test result up on the web bit.
> 
> the difficulty is to know what kdevplatform revision use for what
> kdevelop revision.

Yeah, that is one of our big problems. It makes git bisecting a pain, too. I 
think this should be fixed, but I do not have the seniority to suggest the 
right fix. I'm guessing the choices are

1. merging kdevelop+kdevplatform (with kdevelop an optional compilation unit)
2. making kdevelop have (a specific revision of) kdevplatform as a submodule.
3. making kdevplatform a true library dependency

I personally do not think 3 is doable the way the split is done.

> And publishing the result could be done using a mail sent to
> kdevelop-devel. (Actually Andreas had set up that some time ago)

My server, I fear, is not made for that kind of work (the compilation bit), 
but maybe my workplace could be persuaded. I'll look into it.

> > That is good, then :) And now we are down to 2 failing tests in kdevelop,
> > gdb and qtprinters.
> 
> do you have gdb >= 7.0 installed? qtprinters passes for me.
> gdb not, it's showing some MessageBoxes, I'll look into this issue.

GNU gdb (GDB) 7.1-ubuntu

I'll try to see why qtprinters is failing.

-- 
Kind regards, Esben