Re: Gtk+ unit tests (brainstorming)

["Michael Urman" <murman gmail com>]

On 10/25/06, Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com> wrote:
> Testing those is like testing segfault handling, i.e. just nuts. The
> behavior is undefined once they print. (Well, for critical anyway.
> g_warning seems to be less consistently used)

Certainly setting out to test all critical cases would not add value
corresponding to the effort; criticals are a different beast I
shouldn't have included. Even for warnings, in certain cases making
error cases testable would slow down real life performance without
benefit. But preemptively deciding it's always impossible to test
resilience of certain known warnings is a misstep. An option like
-Werror is really useful, but hard wiring -Werror is too limiting.

Warnings especially, by not being criticals, imply a contract that the
call will function reasonably (not necessarily "correctly") even
during incorrect use. If this is not tested, it will not be correct.

--
Michael Urman