On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Simeon Bird <[email protected]> wrote:
> I mean, if we just remove the conditionals and do
>
> #define DMS_DBUS_SERVICE
> (qgetenv("NEPOMUK_FAKE_DMS_DBUS_SERVICE").isEmpty() ?
> "org.kde.nepomuk.DataManagement" :
> qgetenv("NEPOMUK_FAKE_DMS_DBUS_SERVICE").constData())
>
> in release mode, this will be slow for all the people *not* running
> the test, who will have to look up a variable all the time for no
> reason.
>
I just looked at the code. I see what you mean.
Do you think it would be better to just discard the entire test and move it
into the test framework? It's basically checking if the dbus interface
works. With the nepomuk test library, we actually run our own dbus-server,
so we won't need any of these fake dbus service hacks.
>
>
> On 13 March 2013 18:32, Vishesh Handa <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Simeon Bird <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> The reason the test is failing is that it runs in release mode and we
> >> have in genericdatamanagementjob_p.h:
> >>
> >> #ifndef NDEBUG
> >> #define DMS_DBUS_SERVICE
> >> (qgetenv("NEPOMUK_FAKE_DMS_DBUS_SERVICE").isEmpty() ?
> >> "org.kde.nepomuk.DataManagement" :
> >> qgetenv("NEPOMUK_FAKE_DMS_DBUS_SERVICE").constData())
> >> #else
> >> #define DMS_DBUS_SERVICE "org.kde.nepomuk.DataManagement"
> >> #endif
> >>
> >> so it only pays attention to the fake data management service in debug
> >> mode.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure how to fix this...getenv is probably too expensive in
> >> release mode, right?
> >
> >
> > Well, it is a test. How does it matter if it is expensive?
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Simeon
> >>
> >>
> >> On 11 March 2013 14:31, Vishesh Handa <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > To mailing list people
> >> >
> >> > I know these emails might be a tad bit annoying, but they will only be
> >> > sent
> >> > if some test is failing or if nepomuk is not building. Currently 3
> tests
> >> > are
> >> > failing. Until they are fixed, we will probably get an email each time
> >> > someone pushes something to the stable branch.
> >> >
> >> > It would be awesome if someone could fix the tests! :D
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:58 PM, KDE CI System <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> See <http://build.kde.org/job/nepomuk-core_stable/changes>
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> Nepomuk mailing list
> >> >> [email protected]
> >> >> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/nepomuk
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Vishesh Handa
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Nepomuk mailing list
> >> > [email protected]
> >> > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/nepomuk
> >> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Vishesh Handa
>
--
Vishesh Handa
_______________________________________________
Nepomuk mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/nepomuk
