Michael Van Canneyt wrote: > > > On Mon, 22 May 2006, Florian Klaempfl wrote: > >> Michael Van Canneyt wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Mon, 22 May 2006, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: >>> >>>> On 5/22/06, Bram Kuijvenhoven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> I guess we will need plenty of unit tests to make sure all the >>>>> functions >>>> work consistent, in particular also for dates close to and before >>>> 29-12-1899 :) >>>>> >>>>> (Note: I sent some mail explaining the TryEncodeDateTime function >>>>> some time >>>> ago (21-4-2006), on Graeme's request. I also mentioned an overflow >>>> problem in that code + how to fix. Perhaps this fix can be integrated >>>> into the code as well.) >>>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Bram, >>>> >>>> Yeah, I had my share of uphill battles with old dates (Delphi and >>>> FPC). I works fine with recent dates, but don't venture to far off!! >>>> >>>> I already have a collection of unit tests for dates, which is >>>> incorporated into our products unit tests. We use fpcUnit >>>> extensively. I could always extend those tests a bit more, but as far >>>> as I understand, FPC developers dont' use fpcUnit, but rather some >>>> custom testing framework. >>> >>> 1. fpcunit didn't exist at the time the FPC tests were implemented. >>> 2. Using FPCunit creates a dependency on it. The tests can run mostly >>> with only the system unit... >> >> Which dependencies? Maybe they can be reduced and a fpcunit can be >> added to tests? > > fpcunit depends on not so much, but I want to avoid using the FCL in the > testsuite... Creating a copy seems rather silly too...
You can create an svn:external to important that one from the fcl without creating a real copy. _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel