Qt-contributors-summit-2014-Qs2014QmlTest: Difference between revisions

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-=QmlTest=
-Michał Sawicz, Michael Zanetti
-We’ve been rather happy with qmltestrunner, we’d like to show our approach to combining auto and manual test <span class="caps">QML</span> code. The thing we’ve been struggling with is measuring coverage for <span class="caps">QML</span>, so that’s what we’d like to brainstorm about.
-Some notes:
-* It’s hard to measure test coverage with <span class="caps">QML</span> because:
-*# Declarative code doesn’t really execute anything – it “creates”
-*# eval() breaks coverage metrics by adding code at runtime
-*# standard coverage tools don’t know about <span class="caps">QML</span>/JS
-* We can deal with declarative code by measuring which types were instantiated.
-* We can deal with the eval() problem by agreeing on not to use eval().
-* We can try to use the <span class="caps">QML</span> profiler as tool to measure coverage.
-* The <span class="caps">QML</span> profiler currently measures only function calls. We want branch/condition or line coverage. This would be possible by collecting more data with the profiler, at the cost of a higher impact on performance. As that is not a good idea for profiling it should be optional.
-* Multi-engine profiling is currently not possible with the command line profiler but could be done using EngineControl.
-(Something is wrong with command line handling and the test runner in conjunction with qmlprofiler – it didn’t work in the demo.)

Revision as of 14:01, 24 February 2015