20,741
edits
Cppunit effort: Difference between revisions
→Motivation
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
== Motivation == | == Motivation == | ||
{{Main article|Testing}} | {{Main article|Testing}} | ||
currently there are basically no tests of the fgfs binary or fgdata.<ref>{{cite web | |||
|url = https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/36244101/ | |||
|title = <nowiki> Re: [Flightgear-devel] RFC: Working on a testing strategy for | |||
FlightGear. </nowiki> | |||
|author = <nowiki> Edward d'Auvergne </nowiki> | |||
|date = Mar 5th, 2018 | |||
|added = Mar 5th, 2018 | |||
|script_version = 0.36 | |||
}}</ref> | |||
The original testing approach was designed to make running individual tests quite light-weight and easy during development, but allow the full test-suite to be run during a Jenkins build and James would like to see both of those remain in any change to the testing setup. There’s may ways to achieve that end result of course, but some core developers rely on the ‘make changes, hit build-and-run, see tests fail or pass, repeat’ as a workflow very often, so it’s a priority for them that this workflow remains.<ref>{{cite web | The original testing approach was designed to make running individual tests quite light-weight and easy during development, but allow the full test-suite to be run during a Jenkins build and James would like to see both of those remain in any change to the testing setup. There’s may ways to achieve that end result of course, but some core developers rely on the ‘make changes, hit build-and-run, see tests fail or pass, repeat’ as a workflow very often, so it’s a priority for them that this workflow remains.<ref>{{cite web | ||