2012/6/25 Andre Fischer <a...@a-w-f.de>:
> On 25.06.2012 10:00, Zhe Liu wrote:
>>
>> 2012/6/25 Andre Fischer <a...@a-w-f.de>:
>>>
>>> Hi Zhe Liu,
>>>
>>> we already have four test related modules under main/ (test,
>>> testautomation,
>>> testgraphical, testtools).
>>>
>>> Would one of these be a good place to add two sub-directories for the new
>>> testing code?
>>
>> Are you concerned about too many modules?
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>>
>> The new 2 modules are top level modules. qadevoo and testoo depend
>> on testcommon.
>> qadevoo->testcommon
>> testoo -> testcommon
>> If
>> qadevoo->test/testcommon
>> test/testoo ->test/testcommon
>> I don't know if it works according to the current build system. In
>> addition, I don't want to overwrite the existing code. They are
>> totally different. The 4 modules is maintained by nobody and can be
>> removed in future, I said it in
>> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Test_Refactor
>
>
> I see. The goal is to remove the modules test, testautomation,
> testgraphical, testtools? Then it is OK to ignore them for now.
>
> But then my question is: why not one new module and place testcommon and
> testoo as subdirectories into it?
Do you mean the code structure like the following?
test/testcommon
test/testoo
Jürgen suggested the same code layout. Actually I also prefer to it. I
have one question. test/testoo depends on "test/testcommon".
cd test/testoo
build
Is testcommon built automatically? If yes, it's ok.
>
> Besides, has the naming scheme (test{common/oo}) anything to do with the now
> obsolete distinction between oo and so (the Sun only code parts)?
No! Do you have better name?
>
> -Andre
--
Best Regards
>From aliu...@gmail.com
