yet another unit test framework? -- was fdo#55814: unit test is missing

[Bjoern Michaelsen]

On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 09:37:51AM +0200, Noel Grandin wrote:
> >Yes, it is probably true that you can not easily debug these unit tests.
> >But is the debuggability the only argument here? I doubt it. We have
> Yes it very much is. I'm currently struggling with visibility into a
> failing unit test, and the dual Java/C++ nature of the unit test
> makes it incredibly hard for me to find the source of the problem.

Well, IMHO the main problem with the unoapi tests wrt this is that they
'centralized' a lot of the expectations on the UNO-Api -- which made them hard
to quickly rewrite in C++. THe complex tests should not have this issue.

Other than that, IMHO this is mostly a false dilemma -- not everyone who might
write Python tests would write C++ tests. If this leads to more reliable tests
of any kind, which will turn into tests of the C++ kind when they first fail,
Im all for it.

A side issue: As I wrote in:

 http://skyfromme.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/autopkgtests-for-adults/

I enabled running the (Java) tests against a version installed into the system
-- which is better than testing against a version not into the system, so I
would love to keep that ability when we get more C++ tests (for Python tests I
assume that to be trivial).

@moggi: As I havent looked into that yet -- would you see any blockers there?

Best,

Bjoern