[Portland] xdg-utils proof of concept

[Bryce Harrington]

On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 11:57:27PM +0200, Kevin Krammer wrote:
> On Monday 24 April 2006 23:39, Jeremy White wrote:
> > > What do you think of this approach?  The attached patch adds a 'make
> > > test' target to the makefile system, and I stubbed out a couple simple
> > > tests for two of the commands.  If this approach looks ok, I can go
> > > ahead and flesh these tests further and add tests for the other
> > > commands.  It's nothing fancy, but may be sufficient for just getting
> > > some limited testing in place.  I'm not sure about stuff that requires
> > > user interaction, though, but imagine there are ways to automate even
> > > that...
> > >
> > > Anyway, if this patch looks ok I can commit it.
> >
> > Hey Bryce,
> >
> > I was toying with the idea of working up my new third party
> > software - WinBig (TM) - entirely as an exercise in testing
> > xdg-utils.
> >
> > My thought was to have a process that was fairly heavy on user
> > interaction, as that struck me as necessary.  (e.g. Did the menu
> > show up?  Did the right app open blat.mime?)
> >
> > But then I recalled that you'd started down that road, and
> > I didn't want to duplicate effort.  I took a quick glance,
> > and didn't see 'make test' in the current tip; have you had any further
> > thoughts with this?
> 
> It hasn't been committed yet.
> 
> Anyway, I like the idea of a test target for the Makefile, especially since we 
> now have a fixed set of standard return values.
> A little bit like unit testing for the scripts.
> 
> I had a quick look at Bryce's original patch and it looks good. Not sure if it 
> can still be applied after all the recent changes, but if it can or Bryce has 
> enough time to update it, I'd say commit it!

Yep, I was just waiting on the go-ahead.  I expect it shouldn't be hard
to bring up to date, if there's been any affecting changes.  I can take
a look at it when I'm back from Seattle if someone else doesn't beat me
to it.

Bryce