On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 12:44:19PM +0100, Johan Hake wrote: > On Wednesday January 11 2012 12:38:52 Anders Logg wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:20:55AM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > On 11 January 2012 09:47, Johan Hake <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hello! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While adding a cpp unit test for Vector, I used the convention we have > > > > started on in the Python layer, where each file in theory should test > > > > the interface of one class. This does not fit with the way we > > > > automatically runn the tests, which more or less assume the name of > > > > the cpp executable is test_XX where XX is the particular sub directory > > > > (la, mesh, aso). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I suggest we rename all cpp unit test files in the same way as we have > > > > for the Python interface. Then we prefix the executable with test_. My > > > > particular example would then generate an executable with name: > > > > test_Vector. To accomplish this we need to rename all test.cpp to > > > > SomeClass.cpp. The change would then be applied to both branches. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections? > > > > > > Sounds good. > > > > Agree, but why is it necessary to change this in the 1.0 branch? > > To keep the branches in synch when there are changes that does not change > anything in the api. > > But I can easily just add my unit test to: > test/unit/la/cpp/test.cpp in the stable branch and we are > good. However, I think that unit tests are something we should add > in both branches. Changing the structure to facilitate this process > should then also be done in both branches. Johan
ok, I have no objections. But in general, the stable branch should be for bug fixes and not undergo any restructuring. -- Anders _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
