[Development] QTestlib: how not to test mouseMoveEvent handling
elvstone at gmail.com
Thu Jul 11 10:26:03 CEST 2019
Den tors 11 juli 2019 kl 05:54 skrev Jason McDonald <macadder1 at gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 1:39 AM Shawn Rutledge <Shawn.Rutledge at qt.io> wrote:
> > > On 8 Jul 2019, at 16:24, Volker Hilsheimer <volker.hilsheimer at qt.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Executive summary:
> > >
> > > * QTest::mouseMove seems to be broken
> > > * when simulating QEvent::MouseMove events by constructing event objects, always construct them with global position
> That's good advice for now. I think it would be worth filing a bug to
> see if this part of testlib can be fixed/improved in the future. At
I think https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-5232 could be
re-used/re-opened for this.
It was closed with resolution "Won't Do", but with a comment
""Won't Do" => actually we will do this. In Qt 6 we will drop some
legacy code paths and this stuff will start working fine."
comment from Gatis.
> the very least, it will make it clear that we're aware of the issue.
> I also recall that there used to be a wiki page that listed some
> best-practices for writing unit tests. If that list still exists
> somewhere, this advice should be added there.
> >>That there is no overload that takes modifiers and keys is also strange.
> Most likely this omission is simply because nobody ever asked for such
> an overload. I'm fairly sure that that part of testlib existed before
> modifiers and keys were part of the Qt API and testlib never caught up
> when those were added elsewhere.
> > Yep. Cursor support can be disabled, I think that’s one reason at least. Another is that some platforms (i.e. Wayland) don’t allow applications to set cursor position. Anyway it’s heavy-handed and slow. But tests that need to simulate mouse hover or mouse enter/exit by sending events do need to ensure that the cursor is _not_ on top of the window, to avoid getting spurious events… and that’s usually done by QCursor::setPos(); so we can’t seem to get rid of it after all.
> > https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/5290 seems to have put it into its current state… it’s old.
> I think it got that way a bit earlier than that patch. The patch
> appears to just move code around without modifying any functionality.
> > But before that was https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/4462 which comments out QCursor::setPos() and sends a platform event instead… at least in one case. Too bad the commit message is so sparse.
> Unfortunately, our approval process wasn't followed very well for
> either of those patches. Both patches were pushed through very
> quickly outside the working hours of the testlib maintainer (me, in
> GMT+10 timezone, where the patches were each pushed through in my
> evening). If I had had an opportunity to review them I would
> certainly have objected to the uninformative commit message. (Those
> who were around in the Trolltech and Nokia days may remember my vocal
> campaigns for meaningful commit messages, motivated by the fact that
> for some years I was the poor sucker who had to read thousands of
> commit messages every few months and turn them into release notes.)
> > I suppose there’s the usual tradeoff between the philosophy that real platform testing should involve real platform events (in this case: if you really move the system mouse cursor, then the window system will hopefully send a mouse move event to the window, and aren’t you making the test more realistic that way?) vs. the practical tendency for that kind of testing to be less reliable, with unpredictable latency, needing to use QTRY_ much more because you don’t know how long to wait until the window system reacts, etc.
> I have always been a little uncomfortable with the part of testlib
> that handles mouse and keyboard events because it feels like some of
> it crosses the line from unit testing into integration and system
> testing, and thus really belongs in a separate system-level test
> framework rather than in testlib. The system-level tests that
> masqueraded as unit tests were always more likely to be flaky than
> 'pure' unit tests.
> In the period before Qt 5, I had been hopeful that there would be an
> opportunity to tidy this up and cleanly separate the true unit tests
> from the others. At that time there was a team working on a separate
> system-level testing framework for Qt, but that team was in Brisbane
> and evaporated when the decision was made to eject Qt from Nokia and
> the new system-test framework was never completed.
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
More information about the Development