Havoc Pennington wrote: >Michael Urman wrote: > > >>On 10/25/06, Tim Janik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>>- GLib based test programs should never produce a "CRITICAL **:" or >>> "WARNING **:" message and succeed. >>> >>> >>It would be good not to make it impossible to test WARNINGs and >>CRITICALs. After all, error cases are often the least tested part of >>an application, so it's important to make sure the base library >>detects and handles the error cases correctly. >> > >Testing those is like testing segfault handling, i.e. just nuts. The >behavior is undefined once they print. (Well, for critical anyway. >g_warning seems to be less consistently used) > > On the other hand - its happened to me several times to have gtk+ crash when setting up properties on an object genericly from glade, where a simple g_return_if_fail() guard on that public api would have saved me the trouble of a segfault (sometime one property has no meaning if another one hasnt been setup yet - in which case a g_return_if_fail() guard would be appropriate).
Whether or not its really really relevent, I think that the critical warnings from a function that wasnt fed the correct arguments, or are invalid because of the current object state - are part of the contract of the api, and for whatever thats worth, maybe worth testing for. Ummm, while I'm here - I'd also like to say that - (I'm not about to dig up the quote from the original email but) - I think that there is some value to reporting all the tests that fail - even after one of the tests has failed, based on the same principals that you'd want your compiler to tell you everything that went wrong in its parse (not just the first error), maybe not all spewed out to the console by default - but having the whole test results in a log file can save valuable developer time in some situations. Cheers, -Tristan _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list