Is that case something we should care about?
TEST(MultiThreadedCompositor, double_threaded_start_ignored) { unsigned int const nbuffers{3}; auto display = std::make_shared<StubDisplayWithMockBuffers>(nbuffers); auto mock_scene = std::make_shared<MockScene>(); auto db_compositor_factory = std::make_shared<NullDisplayBufferCompositorFactory>(); auto mock_report = std::make_shared<testing::NiceMock<mtd::MockCompositorReport>>(); EXPECT_CALL(*mock_report, started()) .Times(1);
mc::MultiThreadedCompositor compositor{display, mock_scene, db_compositor_factory, mock_report};
std::thread{[&](){ compositor.start()} }; std::thread{[&](){ compositor.start()} }; }
« Back to merge proposal
Is that case something we should care about?
TEST(MultiThrea dedCompositor, double_ threaded_ start_ignored) shared< StubDisplayWith MockBuffers> (nbuffers) ; shared< MockScene> (); factory = std::make_ shared< NullDisplayBuff erCompositorFac tory>() ; shared< testing: :NiceMock< mtd::MockCompos itorReport> >(); CALL(*mock_ report, started())
{
unsigned int const nbuffers{3};
auto display = std::make_
auto mock_scene = std::make_
auto db_compositor_
auto mock_report = std::make_
EXPECT_
.Times(1);
mc: :MultiThreadedC ompositor compositor{display, mock_scene, db_compositor_ factory, mock_report};
std: :thread{ [&](){ compositor.start()} }; :thread{ [&](){ compositor.start()} };
std:
}