David Abrahams wrote:
"Jeff Garland" <jeff@crystalclearsoftware.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 Only outdated tests get run.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