Bug 38840 - Adding coverage analysis to unit tests

Bjoern Michaelsen bjoern.michaelsen at canonical.com
Mon Aug 27 05:24:10 PDT 2012


On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 12:47:37PM +0200, John Smith wrote:
> Well at the moment there may not be a lot of testcases. But I get the
> impression that the whole reason for adding test coverage in the 1st
> place, is that (much) more tests are intended to be added in the
> future for covering the code that isnt tested yet ? And if that is the
> case, wouldnt it make more sense to cleanly separate 'building your
> project' and 'testing your project' ? I dont get the impression that
> everyone that compiles the code will be interested in all checks being
> executed, especially once there are more tests. For the future, it
> might make more sense if 'make build' (or something similar) only
> compiles the code without running the tests, and that the tests only
> get executed if 'make check' is run ?

We already have enough separation there: unittests, slowtests and
subsequentchecks are all triggered as needed and when it makes sense.



More information about the LibreOffice mailing list