[Libreoffice] concept for c++ based subsequenttests

[Stephan Bergmann]

On 11/30/2011 02:59 PM, Markus Mohrhard wrote:
> Do you have comments or suggestions?

Looks very promising.  Just one minor comment, I would move away from 
the "unoapi" name (and corresponding qa/unoapi directory).  The concept 
of the qadevOOo unoapi tests was to use more-or-less generic code to 
test all the interfaces of all the UNO objects exposed by OOo (so that 
all the objects that implemented, say, XPropertySet would get 
more-or-less the same treatment of all the methods comprising 
XPropertySet).  Do you plan to do likewise with your new approach?  (I'd 
suggest not to, at least not in the excessively generic style of 
qadevOOo.  It certainly makes sense to factor out test code useful in 
various scenarios, but one main property of test code is that it should 
be simple---so simple that you can trust it is testing what you intend 
it to test, and that a failing test makes it glaringly obvious where the 
failure is.  Something the is completely lacking from the qadevOOo concept.)

Your new tests are plain unit tests like the other new sc/qa/unit tests. 
  That they are hooked up to subsequentcheck rather than unitcheck is 
only to not slow down builds, not because they inherently cannot be run 
during a build (like the original qadevOOo based tests that require a 
complete LO installation).  Maybe it would make sense to put them into a 
sc/qa/extra directory?

Stephan