On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 15:38 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> What do you think about this?
As there were no cries of outrage, I went ahead and improved the test
script. While extending the tests I already found different issues in
the implementation:
* Server.GetConfigs() missing
* Session.Status and Session.Progress signal names instead of
Session.StatusChanged and Session.ProgressChanged
* Session status changed from "queueing" to "running" instead of
going to "idle" first
Currently the script is able to run a real sync via the D-Bus API, which
can also be used to add more checks that progress reporting etc. works.
Configuration of the script is still hard-coded.
See the updated script and log message for details. I'll let it sit for
a few days, so if someone else wants to work on it, feel free.
--
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.
_______________________________________________
SyncEvolution mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.syncevolution.org/listinfo/syncevolution
