Broken unittests

[Cyrille Berger]

On Tuesday 31 August 2010, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> On Tuesday 31 August 2010, Cyrille Berger wrote:
> > It is quiet possible that the commit that triggered it is:
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > r1118243 | berger | 2010-04-24 08:02:19 +0200 (Sat, 24 Apr 2010) | 2
> > lines
> > 
> > use the IntegerMath functions for a major speed improvement
> > 
> > 
> > I will try to investigate this evening.
> 
> That would be wonderful!

Reverting this commit do solve the xcf test. Which is somehow a surprise to 
me, I thought the Gimp was also using those fast math procedure. But anyway, I 
will keep investigating and add new unit tests for the integer math functions.
 
> > > > (on a side note, I would prefer if the
> > > > test are not marked as EXPECT_FAIL, it is the best way to forget
> > > > about them  alltogether...)
> > > 
> > > I sort of agree -- but on the other hand, many tests have ten or so
> > > subtests, and if one of them fails, people don't notice when more start
> > > failing.
> > 
> > It is a good point, maybe we should list the EXPECT_FAIL on the wiki ?
> 
> Ok. Maybe we should integrate action plan 3 with a release readiness list
> to have all info in one place, and the expect_fails can go there as well.
I have started a quality control page for the 2.3 release:
http://wiki.koffice.org/index.php?title=Schedules/KOffice/2.3/Quality_Control

-- 
Cyrille Berger