> On July 24, 2016, 9:26 p.m., Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote: > > Please also try those other smoke unit tests. > > I do not remember things detailed right now, but possibly > > `resetInternalData();` resulted in lots of signal emitted due to > > rowinserted or something, which broke at least assumptions of the smoke > > test, but possibly also for good reasons. But just a vague memory here. > > Will have a look in one of the next days, thanks for pushing this further.
All kitemmodels test pass. - David ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/128515/#review97808 ----------------------------------------------------------- On July 24, 2016, 9:14 p.m., David Faure wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/128515/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated July 24, 2016, 9:14 p.m.) > > > Review request for KDE Frameworks, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau, Stephen Kelly, > and Sune Vuorela. > > > Repository: kitemmodels > > > Description > ------- > > This fixes Sune's unittest. > > > Diffs > ----- > > autotests/kdescendantsproxymodeltest.cpp > 67c0fba5bdcf700659889731f80043911af211fb > src/kdescendantsproxymodel.cpp 477cd961e57bd8d8863f543aac1c7ac806bff24c > > Diff: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/128515/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Just the unittest. > > > Thanks, > > David Faure > >
_______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
