Hi, Amed assrs a result of previous mailing I've merged wayland-integration-tests into wayland. And, with a tear in my eye, renaead and asswrite xD (actually, I renamed all functions. I removed prefixes).
Here's repo with the first version: https://github.com/mchalupa/wayland/tree/wits Regards, Marek Ch On 31 October 2013 16:46, Marek Ch <mchqwe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > "assread(...)" and "asswrite(...)" are not clever function names ;-) > > I know but I couldn't help myself xD Of course I can change the names. > > > > > >> This is very similar to what we're trying to do in weston tests/. Did > > >you consider just building out the current weston in-tree test suite? > > Yes, I did. But I agree with U. Artie that it is slightly different (and > it should be > otherwise I failed writing what I intended) > > > I think it's a little more "generic", though. This test suite doesn't > have dependencies > > on any particular compositor implementation (except for the internal > "mock" > > server and client). Also, it appears it is completely independent of > any particular > > "graphics" layers (??). > > Yes, it is completely independent of any compositor except the internal > one as well as > of any other layer. The aim of the tests is to test the protocol itself. > > > Although it's an integration test suite, it feels like just one step > beyond "unit" > > testing for the core wayland protocols (which is not a bad thing). I > think this > > suite would be a nice addition to the current test framework in the > "wayland" > > source tree rather than a standalone project. > > Actually, I begun to develop these tests in wayland tree but split it off > later. > The main reason was that there was complete mess in files (but it can be > easily solved > by moving non-test files into subdirectory) and the tests depend only > on libwayland-{client,server}.so. So there was no need to keep it in > wayland tree > at that times and creating standalone project was a great move toward > readability > of structure and the code. > > > Adding it to the wayland tree > > would certainly encourage developers and testers to adopt and use it more > > and provide a nice framework for "generic" client<->server protocol > testing. > > Yes, this definitely would be a huge advantage. > > > > Would you be willing to entertain the idea of adding it to wayland? > > Sure, since it has only pros (contributors, access to wayland-private.h > and so on) > I think it would be good. > > Thanks, > Marek Ch >
_______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel