Re: Unit tests with check framework

["Øystein Gisnås" <oystein gisnas net>]

I can replace it all over as soon as I get the go (which you just
did). It's a fairly simple to replace everything and drop GUnit.

Looking at further opportunities, test coverage comes up. I had a look
at GStreamers solution to this. They have a neat generated view
http://gstreamer.freedesktop.org/data/coverage/lcov/gstreamer/. The
make scripts for this clutter up a bit, so we have to decide for
including that or not.

2006/12/7, Philip Van Hoof <spam pvanhoof be>:
> That's very nice.
>
> Once all the current unit tests are replaced like this, feel free to
> commit the patch.
>
> Or you can create a branch and work with other people on this? I would
> only see the point of a branch of multiple people are interested,
> however, in working on this.
>
> ps. You don't need to keep the compatibility with GUnit. It's not a
> priority.
>
>
> On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 13:14 +0100, Øystein Gisnås wrote:
> > Philip earlier expressed his interest in using the Check unit test
> > framework instead of GUnit. I've played around with it a bit and found
> > that it has a few improvements over GUnit. The biggest surprise was
> > that it can run in parallel with GUnit, although that is probably not
> > a long-term solution.
> >
> > So if you want to try it out, apply the patch. I've only "converted"
> > three test files, but you'll get the picture..
> >
> > Any opinions on whether GUnit should be replaced by Check? Philip, anyone?
> >
> > Do make 'check' in libtinymail-test to run the tests.
> > _______________________________________________
> > tinymail-devel-list mailing list
> > tinymail-devel-list gnome org
> > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/tinymail-devel-list
> --
> Philip Van Hoof, software developer
> home: me at pvanhoof dot be
> gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org
> blog: http://pvanhoof.be/blog