Re: [lmi] wx_test_input_sequences.cpp

[Vadim Zeitlin]

On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 00:07:22 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:

GC> On 2015-03-10 19:05, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
GC> > On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 14:23:50 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:
GC> [...]
GC> > GC> But you're asking what happens if we change the name of a field. 
Right now,
GC> > GC> the test would treat that field as though it didn't exist: a test 
that had
GC> > GC> always done something would silently begin to do nothing. I think 
it's a
GC> > GC> good idea to guard against that by making sure the field name is 
still part
GC> > GC> of the universe to which it originally belonged.
GC> 
GC> That reminds me of this...
GC> 
GC> /// TestModelViewConsistency(): Diagnose inconsistencies between the
GC> /// Model and the View. This function is designed for developers
GC> /// rather than end users, and makes little attempt to avoid false
GC> /// positives.
GC> 
GC> ...which has never been called routinely, because there has been no
GC> appropriate place to call it. Perhaps it belongs in the GUI test.

 It would, of course, be trivial to call this function from a test. The
only question is from which one should it be done. Adding a new one just
for this seems slightly ridiculous, but I'm not sure where else to put it.

 But I also wonder if it shouldn't refactored and moved in a (new) test
entirely, as it isn't used anywhere in the main application anyhow and it
doesn't seem to require any special access to the private parts of the
class (it does use lineage_, but we could just recreate a new Lineage
object in the test instead of using this private field). What do you think?

GC> It displays two types of warnings: one is probably common in skins
GC> other than 'skin.xrc'; but the other seems to be an error always,
GC> so we probably want to be informed whenever it occurs. Would you
GC> consider adding this to 'wx_test', please? It may come in handy
GC> soon, as we are about to add several new input fields to the GUI.

 I'll do it as soon as you let me know which test would you prefer to see
this in and whether you approve the idea of the above refactoring. Thanks
in advance for your answers!

GC> >  Notice that the attached patch
GC> 
GC> [applied 20150326T2349Z, revision 6150]

 And thanks for applying this!
VZ