I saw something interesting:
If you have a look at the code coverage of gui/text, gui/kernel and
gui/opengl you can see that the code coverage in Qt5.4 is about 50% and
in Qt5/dev 0%!
This is really strange: the tests executed are mostly the same and some
of them are GUI tests.
Why this big diff
On 19/02/2015 17:31, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Thursday 19 February 2015 15:57:30 Paeglis Gatis wrote:
>>> Why can they be ignored?
>> I mean, we use only some of the API from that library, but bundle all of it.
>> If it is not fully covered by tests it is not an issue.
> It's also possible that
On 19/02/2015 17:39, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Thursday 19 February 2015 17:08:42 Sébastien Fricker wrote:
>> Is it possible that the default build parameter get changed between
>> Qt5.4 and dev?
>> For example XCB support get detected automatically and the code get enabled?
> Yes for the EGL pa
On Thursday 19 Feb 2015 08:39:52 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Thursday 19 February 2015 17:08:42 Sébastien Fricker wrote:
> > Is it possible that the default build parameter get changed between
> > Qt5.4 and dev?
> > For example XCB support get detected automatically and the code get
> > enabled?
>
On Thursday 19 February 2015 17:08:42 Sébastien Fricker wrote:
> Is it possible that the default build parameter get changed between
> Qt5.4 and dev?
> For example XCB support get detected automatically and the code get enabled?
Yes for the EGL parts: it's possible the files are now built when th
On Thursday 19 February 2015 15:57:30 Paeglis Gatis wrote:
> > Why can they be ignored?
>
> I mean, we use only some of the API from that library, but bundle all of it.
> If it is not fully covered by tests it is not an issue.
It's also possible that Froglogic built Qt against the system xkbcommo
ds,
Laszlo
*From:*
development-bounces+laszlo.agocs=theqtcompany@qt-project.org
on
behalf of Paeglis Gatis
*Sent:* Thursday, February 19, 2015 4:45 PM
*To:* Sébastien Fricker; development
*Subject:* Re: [Development] Code Coverage Statistics for QtBase
Many of those files are from 3rdparty
te to me. Qxcbwindow.cpp surely has
non-zero coverage when running tests on X11.
Simon
From: Paeglis Gatis
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 23:45
To: Sébastien Fricker; development
Subject: Re: [Development] Code Coverage Statistics for QtBase
Many of those files are from 3rdparty code, the o
ker; development
Subject: Re: [Development] Code Coverage Statistics for QtBase
Why can they be ignored? When the users run Qt applications that code is
executed, so coverage is important IMO.
However if the added code is from build tools (Code generators) then maybe it's
not so critical, as
nt of view.
*From:*
development-bounces+gatis.paeglis=theqtcompany@qt-project.org
on
behalf of Sébastien Fricker
*Sent:* Thursday, February 19, 2015 3:51 PM
*To:* development
*Subject:* [Development] Code Coverage Statistics for
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 4:45 PM
To: Sébastien Fricker; development
Subject: Re: [Development] Code Coverage Statistics for QtBase
Many of those files are from 3rdparty code, the ones I recognize are from
/qtbase/src/3rdparty/xkbcommon, those I think can
be ignored when thinking from code
behalf
of Sébastien Fricker
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 3:51 PM
To: development
Subject: [Development] Code Coverage Statistics for QtBase
Hi,
According http://download.froglogic.com/public/qt5-squishcoco-report/ there is
a big decrease of the code coverage between Qt5/dev and Qt5.4.
The
12 matches
Mail list logo
