Qt test cases (was: Re: Replacing Web in Sato with Midori)

Qt test cases (was: Re: Replacing Web in Sato with Midori)

[Samuel Stirtzel]

2012/8/8 Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>:
> On Wednesday 08 August 2012 17:04:16 Samuel Stirtzel wrote:
>> > On Wednesday 08 August 2012 16:47:05 Koen Kooi wrote:
>> >> Op 8 aug. 2012, om 16:03 heeft Paul Eggleton
>> >> <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>>
>> > het volgende geschreven:
>>
>> > And? KDE is far more demanding upon Qt than most Qt-based applications. We
>> > had to make specific changes to our Qt recipes just to accommodate it.
>>
>> If you're talking about adding accessibility and session management to
>> configure -> these are set by default by Qt.
>> Don't know why they where unset in oe-core though.
>
> Not specifically, I was mainly referring to changes such as providing qt4-
> native; we did not need to do that before.

While this is true, meta-kde is also the only layer using qt-mobility (AFAIK).
So you implicitly want to say that Koen is right because _there are no
other testcases_ for these recipes.

Or do I get you wrong?

>
> Cheers,
> Paul



-- 
Regards
Samuel

Re: Qt test cases (was: Re: Replacing Web in Sato with Midori)

[Paul Eggleton]

On Wednesday 08 August 2012 18:14:00 Samuel Stirtzel wrote:
> 2012/8/8 Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>:
> > On Wednesday 08 August 2012 17:04:16 Samuel Stirtzel wrote:
> >> > On Wednesday 08 August 2012 16:47:05 Koen Kooi wrote:
> >> >> Op 8 aug. 2012, om 16:03 heeft Paul Eggleton
> >> >> <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>>
> >> > 
> >> > het volgende geschreven:
> >> > 
> >> > And? KDE is far more demanding upon Qt than most Qt-based applications.
> >> > We
> >> > had to make specific changes to our Qt recipes just to accommodate it.
> >> 
> >> If you're talking about adding accessibility and session management to
> >> configure -> these are set by default by Qt.
> >> Don't know why they where unset in oe-core though.
> > 
> > Not specifically, I was mainly referring to changes such as providing qt4-
> > native; we did not need to do that before.
> 
> While this is true, meta-kde is also the only layer using qt-mobility
> (AFAIK). So you implicitly want to say that Koen is right because _there
> are no other testcases_ for these recipes.
> 
> Or do I get you wrong?

Koen's claim that we cannot sufficiently test Qt in OE-Core alone because we 
don't have KDE or any large application in it is false, or at the very least 
it is setting the bar unnecessarily and arbitrarily high for the sake of 
argument - that's what I'm saying.

Whether we actually *do* sufficiently test Qt within OE-Core at the moment, 
especially on an automated basis, is a separate question and one we should 
have a serious look at.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: Qt test cases (was: Re: Replacing Web in Sato with Midori)

[Martin Jansa]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1491 bytes --]

On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 06:14:00PM +0200, Samuel Stirtzel wrote:
> 2012/8/8 Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>:
> > On Wednesday 08 August 2012 17:04:16 Samuel Stirtzel wrote:
> >> > On Wednesday 08 August 2012 16:47:05 Koen Kooi wrote:
> >> >> Op 8 aug. 2012, om 16:03 heeft Paul Eggleton
> >> >> <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>>
> >> > het volgende geschreven:
> >>
> >> > And? KDE is far more demanding upon Qt than most Qt-based applications. We
> >> > had to make specific changes to our Qt recipes just to accommodate it.
> >>
> >> If you're talking about adding accessibility and session management to
> >> configure -> these are set by default by Qt.
> >> Don't know why they where unset in oe-core though.
> >
> > Not specifically, I was mainly referring to changes such as providing qt4-
> > native; we did not need to do that before.
> 
> While this is true, meta-kde is also the only layer using qt-mobility (AFAIK).
> So you implicitly want to say that Koen is right because _there are no
> other testcases_ for these recipes.

monav now in meta-oe is also using qt-mobility

> Or do I get you wrong?
> 
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Paul
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Regards
> Samuel
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]

Re: Qt test cases (was: Re: Replacing Web in Sato with Midori)

[Samuel Stirtzel]

2012/8/8 Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 06:14:00PM +0200, Samuel Stirtzel wrote:
>> 2012/8/8 Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>:
>> > On Wednesday 08 August 2012 17:04:16 Samuel Stirtzel wrote:
>> >> > On Wednesday 08 August 2012 16:47:05 Koen Kooi wrote:
>> >> >> Op 8 aug. 2012, om 16:03 heeft Paul Eggleton
>> >> >> <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>>
>> >> > het volgende geschreven:
>> >>
>> >> > And? KDE is far more demanding upon Qt than most Qt-based applications. We
>> >> > had to make specific changes to our Qt recipes just to accommodate it.
>> >>
>> >> If you're talking about adding accessibility and session management to
>> >> configure -> these are set by default by Qt.
>> >> Don't know why they where unset in oe-core though.
>> >
>> > Not specifically, I was mainly referring to changes such as providing qt4-
>> > native; we did not need to do that before.
>>
>> While this is true, meta-kde is also the only layer using qt-mobility (AFAIK).
>> So you implicitly want to say that Koen is right because _there are no
>> other testcases_ for these recipes.
>
> monav now in meta-oe is also using qt-mobility

That is good news, since I don't use master I didn't know about it.
IMO plasma-active is way out of scope for a qt-mobility test case,
good that there is at least one other recipe using qt-mobility..



(Unrelated to your post)
How would an automatic Qt test look in oe-core?
Qt ships a lot examples with the sources, are they sufficient for testing?
They cannot cover everything, but it depends on to what extend we want to test.

For the qt4-native recipe IMO kdelibs4-native isn't a bad test.
Since only a few binaries out of the huge project will be built it
shouldn't be too special or "too big".



Off topic: Do we want to support Qt5 parallel with Qt4 when it is
released soon [1]?

[1] http://qt-project.org/wiki/Qt_5.0#d50ae403cb49a205bdf789f377f5cfe6


-- 
Regards
Samuel

Re: Qt test cases (was: Re: Replacing Web in Sato with Midori)

[Otavio Salvador]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 670 bytes --]

On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Samuel Stirtzel
<s.stirtzel@googlemail.com>wrote:

> Off topic: Do we want to support Qt5 parallel with Qt4 when it is
> released soon [1]?
>
> [1] http://qt-project.org/wiki/Qt_5.0#d50ae403cb49a205bdf789f377f5cfe6


I am on that and I had some discussion with upstream at ESC-e/LinuxCon and
we found some problems to allow parallel toolchain availability. Once I get
some answer on those points I update the project about it.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1246 bytes --]