incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From De Bin Lei <debin....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [REQUEST][VCLAuto]Create two new modules under SRC_ROOT to place vclauto code.
Date Mon, 25 Jun 2012 12:36:51 GMT
2012/6/25 Zhe Liu <aliuzhe@gmail.com>

> 2012/6/25 Andre Fischer <af@a-w-f.de>:
> > On 25.06.2012 10:46, Zhe Liu wrote:
> >>
> >> 2012/6/25 Andre Fischer <af@a-w-f.de>:
> >>>
> >>> On 25.06.2012 10:00, Zhe Liu wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 2012/6/25 Andre Fischer <af@a-w-f.de>:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Zhe Liu,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> we already have four test related modules under main/ (test,
> >>>>> testautomation,
> >>>>> testgraphical, testtools).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Would one of these be a good place to add two sub-directories for
the
> >>>>> new
> >>>>> testing code?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Are you concerned about too many modules?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Yes.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The new 2 modules are top level modules.  qadevoo and  testoo depend
> >>>> on testcommon.
> >>>> qadevoo->testcommon
> >>>> testoo -> testcommon
> >>>> If
> >>>> qadevoo->test/testcommon
> >>>> test/testoo ->test/testcommon
> >>>>  I don't know if it works according to the current build system. In
> >>>> addition, I don't want to overwrite the existing code. They are
> >>>> totally different. The 4 modules is maintained by nobody and can be
> >>>> removed in future, I said it in
> >>>> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Test_Refactor
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I see.  The goal is to remove the modules test, testautomation,
> >>> testgraphical, testtools?  Then it is OK to ignore them for now.
> >>>
> >>> But then my question is: why not one new module and place testcommon
> and
> >>> testoo as subdirectories into it?
> >>
> >> Do you mean the code structure like the following?
> >> test/testcommon
> >> test/testoo
> >> J├╝rgen suggested the same code layout. Actually I also prefer to it. I
> >> have one question. test/testoo depends on "test/testcommon".
> >> cd test/testoo
> >> build
> >> Is testcommon built automatically? If yes, it's ok.
> >
> >
> > We have main/test/prj/build.lst for that.  There is one line for each
> > directory that is to be build, together with dependencies on other
> modules
> > (in the first line) and on other directories in the same module (on each
> > line after the '-')
> >
> > You would probably add two lines similar to these:
> >
> > te test\source\testcommon nmake - all te_testcommon NULL
> > te test\source\testoo nmake - all te_testoo te_testcommon NULL
> >
> > Which state that te_testoo depends on te_testcommon.
> > Then build the module with
> >
> >    cd main/test
> >    build
> >
> > (please note that you build in main/test/, not in main/test/testoo or
> > main/test/testcommon)
> >
> > -Andre
> >
> >
> OK. I accept. Thanks for your advice, Andre.
> De Bin, what's your opinion?
>
Both are ok for me.

> >>
> >>>
> >>> Besides, has the naming scheme (test{common/oo}) anything to do with
> the
> >>> now
> >>> obsolete distinction between oo and so (the Sun only code parts)?
> >>
> >> No!  Do you have better name?
> >>
> >>>
> >>> -Andre
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards
> From aliuzhe@gmail.com
>



-- 
Best regards
Lei De Bin

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message