ASPN ActiveState Programmer Network
ActiveState
/ Home / Perl / PHP / Python / Tcl / XSLT /
/ Safari / My ASPN /
Cookbooks | Documentation | Mailing Lists | Modules | News Feeds | Products | User Groups


Recent Messages
List Archives
About the List
List Leaders
Subscription Options

View Subscriptions
Help

View by Topic
ActiveState
.NET Framework
Open Source
Perl
PHP
Python
Tcl
Web Services
XML & XSLT

View by Category
Database
General
SOAP
System Administration
Tools
User Interfaces
Web Programming
XML Programming


MyASPN >> Mail Archive >> boost
boost
RE: [boost] Re: [Boost.Test] New testing procedure?
by Reece Dunn other posts by this author
May 22 2004 10:12PM messages near this date
[boost] Re: [prereview request][fsm] | [boost] Re: [Boost.Test] New testing procedure?
David Abrahams wrote:
> "Jeff Garland" <jeff@[...].com> writes:
> 
>  > On Sat, 22 May 2004 13:18:41 -0400, David Abrahams wrote
>  >> > I like the idea of specifying the test level (basic, torture, 
> concept).
>  >>
>  >> I am opposed to the idea of requiring humans to initiate the right
>  >> tests, at least without proof that mechanically-initiated tests are
>  >> unworkable.  I don't think we've proven that yes.
>  >
>  > They shouldn't be human initiated -- just configured to one level or 
> another.
>  >  Now obviously a human would need to intervene to reset the level, but 
> that
>  > would only be in the case of ramping up to release, adding a new 
> library,
>  > adding a new compiler, or a specific author request.  I believe this 
> would be
>  > rather infrequent.

I was not suggesting that the basic/full tests be initiated by a human. This 
is what shell scripts are for: full-tests.sh and basic-tests.sh! Then tell a 
computer to run full-tests.sh once a week and basic-tests.sh daily.

>  > Basically, right now we have no way of setting up a Jamfile that can 
> satisfy
>  > the need to have full up tests for new compilers, etc and a basic set of 
> quick
>  > tests...short of replacing the Jamfile all the time.
> 
> I don't see that as a need, or neccessarily an advantage.  Only
> outdated tests get run.
> 
> That said, of course we do have a way:
> 
>    # foo.jam
> 
>    if $(Not_Defined)
>    {
>       # torture tests go here
>    }
> 
> In what way is commenting out the "if" line and checking in the
> jamfile significantly different from other mechanisms one might use to
> alter the set of tests that get run?

Is it possible to add the level as a parameter like how you can configure 
static/dynamic linking, e.g.:

   test basic : basic.cpp : <level> basic ;
   test complete : complete.cpp : <level> torture ;

# basic-tests.sh
   bjam ... basic-test

# full-tests.sh
   bjam ... full-test

Regards,
Reece

_________________________________________________________________
It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today! 
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Thread:
Reece Dunn
David Abrahams
David Abrahams

Privacy Policy | Email Opt-out | Feedback | Syndication
© ActiveState Software Inc. All rights reserved