[Development] The qtbase CI should run the qtdeclarative tests

[kent.hansen at nokia.com]

(Top-posting from webmail)
Yes, we should try to add tests to qtbase when a bug is caught by a qtdeclarative test, just like we add tests for any other bug fix.

http://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,19582 broke qquicktextinput. http://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,20286 fixed it, but no new test was added.

For http://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,19591 I requested at test, but apparently there's some IPv4 vs 6 special configuration needed for it to make sense. I don't know why the test can't be in qtbase; the TestHTTPServer that was crashing in qtdeclarative is running on the local host, I don't think it's doing anything super-special. But I'm not a network guy. :)

I'm not out to put the blame on individual commits. I'm saying it's _good_ that qtdeclarative exercises so much of qtbase, and that we should use that to our advantage in the CI if we can.

Kent

________________________________________
From: development-bounces+kent.hansen=nokia.com at qt-project.org [development-bounces+kent.hansen=nokia.com at qt-project.org] on behalf of Rodal Samuel (Nokia-MP/Oslo)
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 3:49 PM
To: development at qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] The qtbase CI should run the qtdeclarative tests

On 03/19/2012 03:18 PM, ext Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On segunda-feira, 19 de março de 2012 14.28.35, Kent Hansen wrote:
>> Den 19. mars 2012 10:32, skrev ext Thiago Macieira:
>>> On segunda-feira, 19 de março de 2012 08.01.41, lars.knoll at nokia.com
> wrote:
>>>>> Yes, in some ways I feel this is adding complexity to the test setup to
>>>>> work around a "false simplicity" in our source code setup.  We claim
>>>>> that Qt is modular, but actually we know some parts of it are not
>>>>> really,
>>>>> so we add gates to enforce some level of de-modularization.
>>>>
>>>> The main problem here is that our test coverage of qtbase in itself is
>>>> not
>>>> good enough in some areas. So we have to cover this up by adding
>>>> declarative tests in thus implicitly raising test coverage of qtbase.
>>>
>>> While the statement is true, I don't think it's the cause of the problem.
>>>
>>> qtdeclarative is well-known for depending on the internals of QtCore and
>>> QtGui. Internals are not unit-tested and will probably never be.
>>
>> None of the breakages I've seen in the last few weeks have been due to
>> depending on qtbase internals.
>> Where are the parts in qtdeclarative where depending on internals are
>> likely to cause problems? Maybe we can clean that up some more.
>
> I expect the kernel: metatype, metaobject system and event delivery.
>
> Anyway, where *are* the breakages? Last time this happened, I asked you to
> tell us where the breakages are so we could be more careful with the changes.

Indeed, it might be a good idea to start adding auto-tests in qtbase
whenever there's an auto-test that fails in qtdeclarative etc.

--
Samuel
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development at qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development