Re: [SyncEvolution] dbus-server-reorganization progress
On Di, 2011-07-26 at 10:48 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 16:58 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
>
> At the least there can be a test that there is at least one backend.
>
> Also, maybe we can test for the expected backends based on the
> configure
> options?
>
> > A unit test might be able to check that some well-known backends
> (like
> > the file backend) is listed, but anything beyond that is difficult.
> It
> > would have caught this issue, though.
>
> Yes, I think it would be useful.
This patch adds a "make check" test that just checks whether
SyncSource::backendsInfo() is an empty string. Obviously, we would want
to add more specific API than just backendsInfo() to check for specific
backends.
Tests in SyncEvolution should better be written using the existing
CppUnit-based unit and integration testing.
For a simple example, see util.cpp and
SYNCEVOLUTION_TEST_SUITE_REGISTRATION(TimespecTest);
SyncEvolution has some unit tests, but not that many. I find it more
important to have good integration/interoperability testing.
The problem with not registering the backends would have shown up there,
if the tests had been run on a platform exhibiting the problem. So a
simpler unit test would have been nice, but not essential.
--
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.