C++ unit testing with Qt Test, part 2: advanced testing

Still writing in the undefined language, huh? Problem with unit-testing is that it's impossible to catch all possible bugs, especially the insecure buffer overflow and multithreading data races ones. Your only bet is to use a sane programming language like Rust and move forward. Drop your old codebases, I bet maintaining them is more painful than switching to rust. I'll also urge QT developers to focus more time and money towards migrating QT to rust, one step at a time so that we can live in a defined future ahead.

Re: C++ unit testing with Qt Test, part 2: advanced testing

#5

Post by oblio » Wed, Nov 29, 2017, 3:42 PM UTC

rasjani wrote: post #3

rasjani wrote: post #2

Qt creator integration relies

Heavily on the directory structure and how one sets up the the qmake's pro files. This is very cumbersome for mono repos with multiple build targets.

You can edit your previous comment.

Re: C++ unit testing with Qt Test, part 2: advanced testing

#6

Post by loup-vaillant » Wed, Nov 29, 2017, 3:49 PM UTC

oblio wrote: post #5

rasjani wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heavily on the directory structure and how one sets up the the qmake's pro files. This is very cumbersome for mono repos with multiple build targets.

You can edit your previous comment.

I think it was on purpose, nested comments being an illustration of a (small) directory structure. Some comments about Lisp achieve a similar effect by littering themselves with parentheses.

Re: C++ unit testing with Qt Test, part 2: advanced testing

#7

Post by hhmc » Wed, Nov 29, 2017, 4:00 PM UTC

rasjani wrote: post #3

rasjani wrote: post #2

Qt creator integration relies

Heavily on the directory structure and how one sets up the the qmake's pro files. This is very cumbersome for mono repos with multiple build targets.

qtcreator works well with mono repo+multiple targets if you use cmake (which is well supported).

Re: C++ unit testing with Qt Test, part 2: advanced testing

#8

Post by rasjani » Wed, Nov 29, 2017, 4:31 PM UTC

loup-vaillant wrote: post #6

oblio wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can edit your previous comment.

I think it was on purpose, nested comments being an illustration of a (small) directory structure. Some comments about Lisp achieve a similar effect by littering themselves with parentheses.

No it wasn't intentional - and iOS client I currently have installed does not have edit and account password is something I don't remember without password manager so I couldn't just switch to web :(

Sorry

Re: C++ unit testing with Qt Test, part 2: advanced testing

#9

Post by blattimwind » Wed, Nov 29, 2017, 4:49 PM UTC

rasjani wrote: post #8

loup-vaillant wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it was on purpose, nested comments being an illustration of a (small) directory structure. Some comments about Lisp achieve a similar effect by littering themselves with parentheses.

No it wasn't intentional - and iOS client I currently have installed does not have edit and account password is something I don't remember without password manager so I couldn't just switch to web :( Sorry

When someone suggests that something you did was smart, don't go ahead and tell them they're wrong ;)

Re: C++ unit testing with Qt Test, part 2: advanced testing

#10

Post by malkia » Wed, Nov 29, 2017, 5:06 PM UTC

Talking about unit testing, what are people using for coverage, and more specifically on Windows + MSVC (Professional, or Community)?

What are the sane choices there? (I've installed OpenCppCoverage two days ago, and so far so good, but wondering about other choices)

https://opencppcoverage.codeplex.com/ https://github.com/OpenCppCoverage/OpenCppCoverage https://github.com/OpenCppCoverage/OpenCppCoveragePlugin