Re: [lmi] [PATCH] Add --gui_test_path command line option to the GUI test.

[Greg Chicares]

On 02/01/2015 11:47 AM, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 23:42:09 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> GC> Having just built lmi on debian, I figured this was the perfect time to
> GC> return to this old email that I had marked for followup: I haven't put
> GC> any of the proprietary test files here, so...
> GC> 
> GC> I've rebuilt wx, even though it's still using gtk+-2; this works fine:
> GC> 
> GC> /opt/lmi/build[0]$LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/local/lib:/opt/lmi/local/lib 
> ./lmi_wx --ash_nazg
> GC> 
> GC> However, the GUI test doesn't work, presumably due to the special way
> GC> it starts up (this is wx-3.1 git HEAD as of this morning, BTW):
> GC> 
> GC> /opt/lmi/build[0]$LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/local/lib:/opt/lmi/local/lib 
> ./wx_test --ash_nazg
> GC> 
> GC> (process:5081): GLib-GObject-CRITICAL **: 
> /tmp/buildd/glib2.0-2.33.12+really2.32.4/./gobject/gtype.c:2722: You forgot 
> to call g_type_init()
> ...
> 
>  I can confirm that I see this as well and it happens because the code
> attempts to show a wxMessageBox before initializing GTK+. I clearly need to
> fix this to avoid hanging/crashing in this case, but the trouble is that
> it's not that obvious as there is no simple equivalent of
> wxSafeShowMessage() in wxGTK.

Could we not do something like this in lmi at least?

#if defined wxGTK_or_whatever_the_macro_is
void wxSafeShowMessage(char* s) {std::err << s << std::endl;}
#endif // defined wxGTK_or_whatever_the_macro_is

>  In the meanwhile specifying --gui_test_path=. command line option should
> allow you to advance slightly further.

Not urgent. I'd like to try to get wx-gtk-3 working first, then return to that.

> But please notice that you should
> fully expect more problems under wxGTK, I never had time to even start
> working on fixing multiple issues in the test suite there (some of them due
> to the way that GTK+ UI just works differently, but not all), as I always
> had higher priority tasks to do (and still have, with the pending updates
> to a couple of tests after the specification revision...).

I'd say this is acceptable, for now at least. It forces us to work with msw
if we want the automated GUI test, but we're using msw anyway, and so are
all known end users.