Says GCC:
In function ‘char* QTest::toString(QPair<T1, T2>&) [with T1 = QWidget*; T2 = QEvent::Type]’,
warning: ‘%s’ directive argument is null [-Wformat-overflow=]
Fix by re-using formatString(), once introduced for std::tuple.
As a side-effect, this gets rid of the funny double-quotes around the
output.
Change-Id: I2dd5f10fa2b3a392370bf487c1b7e98f3d190978
Reviewed-by: Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Qt CI Bot <qt_ci_bot@qt-project.org>
Make QPair an alias for std::pair, and qMakePair just a forwarder
towards std::make_pair.
Why? Fundamentally to ditch a bunch of NIH code; gain for free
structured bindings, std::tuple and std::reference_wrapper
compatibility, and so on.
Breakages:
* Some that code manually forward declares QPair.
We don't care about it (<QContainerFwd> is the proper way).
* Some code that overloads on std::pair and QPair. Luckily
it's mostly centralized: debug, metatypes, testing macros.
Just remove the QPair overload.
* Usages of qMakePair forcing the template type parameters.
There are a handful of these in qtbase, but only one was actually
broken.
* std::pair is NOT (and will never likely be) trivially copiable.
This is agreed to be a mistake done by practically all implementations
in C++11, can can't be fixed without breaking ABI.
Some code using QPair assuming it's trivially copiable may break;
exactly one occurrence was in qtbase.
* QMetaType logic extracts the type names in two different ways,
one by looking at the source code string (e.g. extracted by moc)
and one via some ad-hoc reflection in C++. We need to make
"QPair" (as spelled in the source code) be the same as "std::pair"
(gathered via reflection, which will see through the alias)
when compared. The way it's already done e.g. for QList is
by actually replacing the moc-extracted name with the name
of the actual type used in C++; do the same here.
On libc++, std::pair is actually in an inline namespace --
i.e. std::__1::pair; the reflection will extract and store
"std::__1::pair" so we need an ad-hoc fix to QMetaType.
[ChangeLog][QtCore][QPair] QPair is now an alias to std::pair,
and does not exist as a class in Qt any more. This may break
code such as functions overloaded for both QPair and std::pair.
Usually, the overload taking a QPair can be safely discarded,
leaving only the one taking a std::pair. QPair API has not changed,
and qMakePair is still available for compatibility (although
new code is encouraged to use std::pair and std::make_pair
directly instead).
Change-Id: I7725c751bf23946cde577b1406e86a336c0a3dcf
Reviewed-by: Lars Knoll <lars.knoll@qt.io>
In selftests.qrc, imposed alphabetic order (on stem of name, then on
suffix, effectively treating . as sorting before any letter) while
removing old tests and adding new tests and data. Updated all non-csv
files and added many missing files. (Not clear on csv support status;
the script seems to have dropped it after 5.6, but the test still uses
it.)
Left expected_crashes* alone (no new files added, no update to old) as
I don't get results resembling those anticipated.
Omitted printdatatagswithglobaltags, printdatatags due to dangling
hspace on output lines, which upset sanity-bot. A change to the test
cpp is needed to make it viable to skip that dangling hspace.
Change-Id: Iab3fb626c44a91c249b2fb626c12c75ea0317098
Reviewed-by: Frederik Gladhorn <frederik.gladhorn@qt.io>
Conflicts:
src/widgets/kernel/qwidget.cpp
This merge also extends the expected output of the pairdiagnostics
teamcity output (added in dev in commit
c608ffc56a) after the recent addition of
the flowId attribute to the teamcity output (commit
8f03656211 in 5.9).
Change-Id: I3868166e5efc45538544fffd14d8aba438f9173c
Currently when doing comparison with pair-like classes the fallback
toString method is called which returns a Q_NULLPTR thus not allowing
proper diagnostic of the values that triggered an error. This patch
adds support for QPair and std::pair to improve the tests output
readability.
[ChangeLog][QtTest][QCOMPARE] Now outputs contents of QPair and
std::pair on failure.
Change-Id: Ib0b4aad7640590d56275b6f1306fb9fb39fa81bc
Reviewed-by: Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira@intel.com>
