Would that be a fourth copy in the tree at this point?
-e
On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Mike Hommey <m...@glandium.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:04:05AM +1100, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Mike Hommey <m...@glandium.org> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > CppUnitTests are fine to keep.
> >
> >
> > Having said that, IMO it is desirable to convert CppUnitTests to gtests
> > where possible. Every CppUnitTest has to provide some basic
> check/pass/fail
> > infrastructure, and many of them provide their own. Converting to gtest
> > provides consistency and usually ends up making tests shorter. E.g. a lot
> > of code like this:
> >
> > if (!Foo(bar)) {
> > printf("Foo failed");
> > return false;
> > }
> >
> > becomes this:
> >
> > ASSERT_TRUE(Foo(bar)) << "Foo failed";
> >
> > The tests in mfbt/tests/ are good candidates for conversion
>
> Arguably, the tests in mfbt/tests are good examples of what not to touch:
> they are valuable to run (and are built) in e.g. standalone js builds,
> which don't have libxul-gtests.
>
> The issue of C++ test harness is however real, but it's not a matter of
> a simple conversion: it's a matter of having a non-libxul-gtest gtest
> C++ test harness.
>
> Mike
> _______________________________________________
> dev-platform mailing list
> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
>
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
