FlightGear Headless: Difference between revisions

Line 206: Line 206:


== Introducing Regression Tests to FlightGear ==
== Introducing Regression Tests to FlightGear ==
{{FGCquote
|1= Actually my thinking is along these lines - these are exactly the same types of changes I was thinking of for fully decoupling all the various parts of FlightGear for use in a CppUnit-based test suite ;)  Something for the future though.
|2= {{cite web
  | url    = http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?p=277299#p277299
  | title  = <nowiki>Re: FGPython an propose for Python as an nasal alternative</nowiki>
  | author = <nowiki>bugman</nowiki>
  | date  = Feb 23rd, 2016
  | added  = Feb 23rd, 2016
  | script_version = 0.25
  }}
}}
{{FGCquote
|1= Personally I would be reluctant to add a framework dependency (CppUnit / Google Test) unless the benefits are large and thus far I wasn’t convinced. The nasty macro-based tests are my hack and could / should be improved. Boost is a bit of a debating point in the project, I’d suggest to avoid it for tests again unless there is some massive benefit. Reflecting on this have written the above, if there was a common framework which could replace my hacks, but also avoid Boost, I’d personally be okay with that providing it’s an optional compile time requirement. Whatever the solution, it should be runnable via CTest, and if it generates output that Jenkins can parse, that would be fantastic. Non-Ctest compatible solutions would be possible but mean some build infrastructure changes.
|2= {{cite web
  | url    = http://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/33628094/
  | title  = <nowiki>Re: [Flightgear-devel] SimGear/FlightGear Portability Patches</nowiki>
  | author = <nowiki>James Turner</nowiki>
  | date  = Mar 23rd, 2015
  | added  = Mar 23rd, 2015
  | script_version = 0.25
  }}
}}


{{FGCquote
{{FGCquote