| Time |
Nick |
Message |
| 01:25 |
|
v-rob joined #luanti-dev |
| 03:46 |
|
behalebabo joined #luanti-dev |
| 04:00 |
|
MTDiscord joined #luanti-dev |
| 04:23 |
|
ivanbu joined #luanti-dev |
| 04:25 |
|
ivanbu joined #luanti-dev |
| 04:37 |
|
SFENCE joined #luanti-dev |
| 04:43 |
|
ivanbu joined #luanti-dev |
| 05:29 |
|
SFENCE joined #luanti-dev |
| 05:58 |
|
SFENCE joined #luanti-dev |
| 06:04 |
|
SFENCE joined #luanti-dev |
| 06:08 |
|
SFENCE joined #luanti-dev |
| 06:16 |
|
SFENCE joined #luanti-dev |
| 06:34 |
|
SFENCE joined #luanti-dev |
| 07:00 |
|
SFENCE joined #luanti-dev |
| 07:31 |
|
SFENCE joined #luanti-dev |
| 07:51 |
|
SFENCE joined #luanti-dev |
| 14:40 |
|
behalebabo joined #luanti-dev |
| 14:49 |
|
Desour joined #luanti-dev |
| 15:02 |
|
wrrrzr joined #luanti-dev |
| 15:02 |
wrrrzr |
Why we migrate to catch? |
| 15:26 |
MTDiscord |
<josiah_wi> I think I outlined my reasoning in the associated issue. But in summary, Catch is well-known, and provides much more more readable information on test failures. I was running into the problem that I could not even figure out which tests were failing, because the failure messages are buried in the test output. |
| 15:27 |
MTDiscord |
<josiah_wi> #13610 |
| 15:27 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/luanti-org/luanti/issues/13610 -- Migrate unit tests to Catch2 framework. |
| 15:38 |
MTDiscord |
<luatic> see also e.g. https://github.com/luanti-org/luanti/pull/16040#issuecomment-2816704153 |
| 15:53 |
|
wrrrzr left #luanti-dev |
| 15:59 |
MTDiscord |
<josiah_wi> That's an intriguing idea to make test.h use Catch2 under the hood, Lars. It almost seems trivially easy except that I don't think TEST_CASE will work inside a function scope (haven't tried it though). |
| 16:00 |
MTDiscord |
<josiah_wi> If I'm right, you can't simply change REGISTER_TEST_CASE to be a TEST_CASE that invokes the described method. |
| 16:06 |
MTDiscord |
<luatic> yes, that's basically the problem. and REGISTER_TEST_CASE expects a void function pointer (so a lambda won't work). but i think using macros something should be possible. |
| 16:15 |
MTDiscord |
<josiah_wi> Yes, it should... you can end the function block and then do the TEST_CASE. Just like SQL injection. |
| 16:16 |
MTDiscord |
<josiah_wi> Oh, but then you also need a mechanism to open another function definition, and make sure that gets called. |
| 16:16 |
MTDiscord |
<josiah_wi> So you end up with something bordering on Catch2 macro sophistication. |
| 16:16 |
MTDiscord |
<josiah_wi> Sounds like it's complicated enough that we absolutely have to do it to show off. |
| 16:16 |
MTDiscord |
<luatic> hehe |
| 16:17 |
|
v-rob joined #luanti-dev |
| 16:52 |
pgimeno |
would this patch be considered for minetest_game? http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/pastes/fix_dry_grass_on_dirt.patch |
| 16:56 |
pgimeno |
it is formatted so it can be imported with `git am` |
| 16:58 |
MTDiscord |
<luatic> seems fine to me. though there should maybe be a comment left in the code to prevent someone making this mistake again? |
| 17:12 |
pgimeno |
yeah I thought the same after sending it |
| 17:17 |
sfan5 |
if you add a comment we can merge it |
| 17:18 |
pgimeno |
done, refresh |
| 17:20 |
sfan5 |
done |
| 17:20 |
|
Noisytoot joined #luanti-dev |
| 17:20 |
pgimeno |
thanks |
| 17:34 |
|
ROllerozxa joined #luanti-dev |
| 17:48 |
|
v-rob joined #luanti-dev |
| 18:42 |
|
crazyR joined #luanti-dev |
| 18:57 |
|
Noisytoot joined #luanti-dev |
| 19:40 |
|
fluxionary joined #luanti-dev |
| 20:00 |
|
exoticalexo joined #luanti-dev |
| 21:42 |
MTDiscord |
<herowl> Pretty sure function pointers can bind to a corresponding lambda. |
| 21:43 |
MTDiscord |
<luatic> if there are no captures, yes. |
| 21:43 |
MTDiscord |
<herowl> Does that context require captures? |
| 21:43 |
MTDiscord |
<luatic> yes |
| 22:08 |
|
v-rob joined #luanti-dev |
| 22:11 |
[MatrxMT] |
<grorp> sfan5: would you like to have another look at #13125 (after the hack I introduced to fix the "stuck notification" issue), or shall we just merge it now? |
| 22:11 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/luanti-org/luanti/issues/13125 -- Android: Persistent notification while ingame by srifqi |
| 22:32 |
|
panwolfram joined #luanti-dev |
| 22:54 |
|
fluxionary joined #luanti-dev |
| 22:57 |
sfan5 |
I'll check |
| 22:58 |
sfan5 |
the hack is just to re-show it every 10 seconds? sounds ok |
| 22:58 |
sfan5 |
maybe consider making the duration longer |
| 23:05 |
|
Eragon joined #luanti-dev |
| 23:30 |
[MatrxMT] |
<grorp> yeah, and the user shouldn't notice anything of that since it just replaces the existing notification. it's still observable though, e.g. if you try to dismiss the notification |
| 23:33 |
[MatrxMT] |
<grorp> what duration would you suggest? I suppose it's a trade-off between "notification stuck shorter after closing" and "less work", but I'm not sure if the work is significant |
| 23:54 |
[MatrxMT] |
<Zughy> any core dev's take on #15916? Before that "possible close" goes stale |
| 23:54 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/luanti-org/luanti/issues/15916 -- Engine crafting system v2 (in lua) |
