diff options
author | Simon McVittie <simon.mcvittie@collabora.co.uk> | 2013-10-02 13:44:10 +0100 |
---|---|---|
committer | Simon McVittie <simon.mcvittie@collabora.co.uk> | 2013-10-02 13:44:10 +0100 |
commit | d0af8d654ae439a1a333c33f6e44084d3dad2afb (patch) | |
tree | 6c58a7735c387308f5f62647991f8e615b439510 /NEWS | |
parent | b89f6fe0bcacef9340f633ab09b275122c6db644 (diff) | |
download | telepathy-mission-control-d0af8d654ae439a1a333c33f6e44084d3dad2afb.tar.gz |
avatar-refresh test: subsume avatar-persist, and test more situations
We have some sort of combinatorial explosion going on here, and it
seems best to test it in a somewhat systematic way:
* is the protocol one where avatars persist on the server (Gabble)
or not (Salut)?
* if it's like Gabble, does it download our own avatar token
before signalling CONNECTED (as I suspect Haze does), or
on-demand after GetKnownAvatarTokens (as Gabble appears to)?
* if it's like Gabble, is the server storing an avatar for us?
* in either case, do we have an avatar stored locally, and has
it previously been uploaded or not?
In addition, the avatar-refresh and avatar-persist tests exercised
migration from ~/.missioncontrol and a low-priority XDG_DATA_DIRS entry
(respectively) to ~/.local/share. I didn't do that in a loop, because
it isn't applicable in all cases and would lead to even more
combinations - testing each case once should be enough.
Bug: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69885
Reviewed-by: Guillaume Desmottes <guillaume.desmottes@collabora.co.uk>
[cherry-picked from master commit d780671 plus the test part of
4f4ed24, adjusted for old constant naming and to replace
unforbid_all() with unforbid_events() -smcv]
Conflicts:
tests/twisted/account-manager/avatar-persist.py
tests/twisted/account-manager/avatar-refresh.py
Diffstat (limited to 'NEWS')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions