schwehr at gmail.com
Tue Feb 21 11:46:43 PST 2017
It's often easier to port tests to get the breakout I need that is hard to
do by chaining test runners. Plus I need to get in there and setup some
fuzzers, which is very not like tut.
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Mateusz Loskot <mateusz at loskot.net> wrote:
> I always thought GEOS tests are dead simple based on lightweight runner.
> If something is missing, just add it and submit to GEOS.
> Rewriting tests just for the sake of making them based on GTest.
> On 21 Feb 2017 8:10 p.m., "Kurt Schwehr" <schwehr at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The geos coverage is okay, but I have a hard time working with it. I've
>> mostly been putting tests for libs that GDAL can be dependent on for lack
>> of another place to put them as I can push the code.
>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Mateusz Loskot <mateusz at loskot.net>
>>> On 21 February 2017 at 14:01, Mateusz Loskot <mateusz at loskot.net> wrote:
>>> > Kurt Schwehr-2 wrote
>>> >> Well, it would be great if the GDAL community wants to merge that
>>> > +1 - I'd welcome it
>>> Is re-writing tests of GDAL dependencies part of the big plan?
>>> AFAIK, GEOS is covered with tests pretty well.
>>> Best regards.
>>> Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
>>> gdal-dev mailing list
>>> gdal-dev at lists.osgeo.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the gdal-dev