[LLVMdev] Any objections to my importing GoogleMock to go with GoogleTest in LLVM?

[Chandler Carruth]

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Rafael Espíndola <
rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:

> > I think the cost of carrying it around is essentially zero. I'm happy to
> do
> > any of the maintenance. People who don't know how to use it or want to
> learn
> > how to use it don't need to use it. If it isn't making their job of
> writing
> > tests sufficiently easier to justify, then they don't use it. I see this
> as
> > a good pattern.
>
> That is not the case. If the test finds any bug at all, people have to
> look at the testcase and see if it is failing.
>
> Even if not bug is found, someone doing refactoring has to change the
> test to use the new apis.


Yes, but this is relatively rare in both cases. I looked at the maintenance
burden of unittest/... and it doesn't look like this is a common occurrence
in LLVM. I also expect the results of using these tools to be easier for
maintainers rather than harder in most cases. (See my reply to Sean and C.
Bergstrom...)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20131114/141b027f/attachment.html>