Def greet( name):print 'Hello, ', nameclass Foo( object):started = ClassSignalclassSignalFactory = ClassSignalFactoryclassSignalFactory.register( 'Greet ')def init( self):super(Foo, self). Foo1 = Foofoo2 = Foofoo1.started.connect( lambda: print( 'I am foo1 '))foo2.started.connect( lambda: print( 42))foo1.run # will output I am foo1foo2.run # will output 42Instead of having to subclass Foo and implement the new behavior, we can simply reuse the exisitng Foo class and attach on to its instances. What's missing?The goal of this library is to mimic Qt's callback system without requiring all either end of the signal/slot to be a QObject derivative.That said in the current state it is missing the following features:.
Learn how to create a simple window in Python. Investary Website - Twitter - Facebook - http://www.facebook. QML and PyQT: Creating a GUI (tutorial) If you have not done our first PyQT tutorial yet, you should do it, it’s fun! In this tutorial we will use PyQT4 and a user interface markup language, a language that describes the graphical user interfaces and controls.
It does not handle multiple threads. The slots are called in the same thread as the signal.This is because I am currently not aware of a way to do this in Python without implementing an equivalent to QObject which I am trying to avoid. There is no type checking. Qt requires signals to declare the type of the data they emit.
This is great for C but I feel it's not very pythonic and so do not implement that behavior. You cannot query the sender. In Qt you can check what object sent a signal.
Again this relies on inheriting from a QObject and Qt managing states, which are somethings I was trying to avoid. The alternative is that you can send self as the first parameter of the signal. Signal.emit(self, arg1, arg2) and the slot will need to expect the first argument to be the sender.If anyone has any suggestions or solutions on how I can overcome these caveats, I'm all ears and very willing to implement it or accept pull requests from other people too Comparisons To Other LibrariesThere are a few other libraries to compare with that implement Signals. I am not completely familiar with them so please correct me if I am wrong.These may serve your purposes better depending on what you are doing.
![Python unit test qt that popup is created 2 Python unit test qt that popup is created 2](/uploads/1/2/4/3/124364653/210380736.png)
The goal of PySignal is first and foremost to be a Qt style signal slot system so the comparisons are written with that in mind.Blinker appears to implement a very similar signal to slot mechanism. It is inspired by the django signal system. It has a few more convenience methods like temporary connections and the ability to handle dispatch logic based on input. It does not try and keep the Qt interface naming since it prefers the django system instead.
It does not appear to support partials and lambdasSmokeSignal is another django inspired signal system. It has a decorator based interface with a focus on slots rather than signals.
I am just starting up a new project that needs some cross-platform GUI, and we have chosen Qt as the GUI-framework.We need a unit-testing framework, too. Until about a year ago we used an in-house developed unit-testing framework for C-projects, but we are now transitioning to using Google Test for new projects.Does anyone have any experience with using Google Test for Qt-applications? Is QtTest/QTestLib a better alternative?I am still not sure how much we want to use Qt in the non-GUI parts of the project - we would probably prefer to just use STL/Boost in the core-code with a small interface to the Qt-based GUI.EDIT: It looks like many are leaning towards QtTest. Is there anybody who has any experience with integrating this with a continous integration server? Also, it would seem to me that having to handle a separate application for each new test case would cause a lot of friction. Is there any good way to solve that? Does Qt Creator have a good way of handling such test cases or would you need to have a project per test case?
I don't know that QTestLib is 'better' than one framework for another in such general terms. There is one thing that it does well, and that's provide a good way to test Qt based applications.You could integrate QTest into your new Google Test based setup. I haven't tried it, but based on how QTestLib is architected, it seems like it would not be too complicated.Tests written with pure QTestLib have an -xml option that you could use, along with some XSLT transformations to convert to the needed format for a continuous integration server.
However, a lot of that depends on which CI server you go with. I would imagine the same applies to GTest.A single test app per test case never caused a lot of friction for me, but that depends on having a build system that would do a decent job of managing the building and execution of the test cases.I don't know of anything in Qt Creator that would require a seperate project per test case but it could have changed since the last time I looked at Qt Creator.I would also suggest sticking with QtCore and staying away from the STL.
Using QtCore throughout will make dealing with the GUI bits that require the Qt data types easier. You won't have to worry about converting from one data type to another in that case. I started off using QtTest for my app and very, very quickly started running into limitations with it. The two main problems were:1) My tests run very fast - sufficiently quickly that the overhead of loading an executable, setting up a Q(Core)Application (if needed) etc often dwarfs the running time of the tests themselves!
Linking each executable takes up a lot of time, too.The overhead just kept on increasing as more and more classes were added, and it soon became a problem - one of the goals of unit tests are to have a safety net that runs so fast that it is not a burden at all, and this was rapidly becoming not the case. The solution is to glob multiple test suites into one executable, and while (as shown above) this is mostly do-able, it is and has important limitations.2) No fixture support - a deal-breaker for me.So after a while, I switched to Google Test - it is a far more featureful and sophisticated unit testing framework (especially when used with Google Mock) and solves 1) and 2), and moreover, you can still easily use the handy QTestLib features such as QSignalSpy and simulation of GUI events, etc.
It was a bit of a pain to switch, but thankfully the project had not advanced too far and many of the changes could be automated.Personally, I will not be using QtTest over Google Test for future projects - if offers no real advantages that I can see, and has important drawbacks. @KeyserSoze Any end-to-end/ integration tests that require QWidgets have a QApplication; this QApplication is created (but not exec'd) in main, before I RUNALLTESTS. QMainWindow can be used, but I mainly only use it in my end-to-end tests. The tests themselves follow the standard Google Test scheme and I generally have e.g. All unit tests for class X in a file called Xtests.cpp. So it's essentially a standard gtest project, with a few concession to Qt (creation of a QApplication before running the tests in the normal way).–Aug 27 '13 at 19:46. I've just been playing around with this.
The main advantage of using Google Test over QtTest for us is that we do all our UI development in Visual Studio. If you use Visual Studio 2012 and install the you can get VS to recognise the tests and include them in its Test Explorer. This is great for developers to be able to use as they write code, and because Google Test is portable we can also add the tests to the end of our Linux build.I'm hoping in the future that someone will add support for C to one of the concurrent testing tools that C# have, like, and.Of course, you might find someone writes another adapter for VS2012 that adds QtTest support to Test Adapter in which case this advantage goes away! If anyone is interested in this there's a good blog post.