Re: [patch] fix bug 4612

[Andrew Cagney <cagney@redhat.com>]

Kris,

Yes, the dogtail testing.  You'll see that there frysk-gui tree now also 
contains JUnit tests; and we're able to more directly test components 
using that.

Pearly, you may want to talk to Sami about opportunities here.

Andrew


Kris Van Hees wrote:
> Woops, my apologies for sending this off before responding to the first point
> as well (I guess I do need more coffee):
>
> I do agree that testing is important (obviously), and hope that we will be able
> to increase our GUI test coverage as time goes by.  However, it clearly has
> been a problem in the past as well (as witnessed by the very limited amount of
> GUI tests that currently exist), and that is very understandable given the
> framework needed to create those tests.  Andrew even mentioned at OLS thatthe
> GUI is essentially not tested.
>
> But we do need to get these bugs fixed, and make the GUI usable.  Given the
> complexity writing GUI tests (using dogtail), it seem more prudent to wait for
> the affected windows to stabilize to write tests.  Otherwise it's just going
> to be a wasted effort.
>
> 	Cheers,
> 	Kris
>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 10:39:27AM -0400, Kris Van Hees wrote:
>   
>> The code duplication between the Disassembler and Memory windows has been
>> mentioned during the conf call where I pointed out the various problems
>> found with those windows (and their implementation).  It certainly could do
>> with a refactoring, although it is too early for that right now.  For one,
>> I do not think it is wise to do it as part of a bug fix, and secondly, the
>> planned changes to the Memory window will cause it to deviate more from the
>> Disassembler window than it does now, so premature refactoring is likely to
>> need a (partial) reversal later on.
>>
>> 	Cheers,
>> 	Kris
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 09:02:19AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>>     
>>> Pearly,
>>>
>>> The below looks fine.  Will you be around tuesday morning (your time?).  
>>> I'll send you off list some stuff to do with CVS so that you can check this 
>>> in.
>>>
>>> Two things to think about though:
>>>
>>> -> testing;
>>> When making fixes we all endeavor to author the test-case up-front so that 
>>> we can directly demonstrate that the change has the intended effect.
>>>
>>> -> it looks like there is much code duplication between the Disassembler 
>>> and Memory windows;
>>> an opportunity to refactor?
>>>