on Fri Aug 17 2007, Stefan Seefeld <seefeld-AT-sympatico.ca> wrote:
David Abrahams wrote:
on Fri Aug 17 2007, Stefan Seefeld <seefeld-AT-sympatico.ca> wrote:
Would QMTest be used to drive multi-host testing across the internet (i.e. at different testers' sites), or more likely just within local networks? If the former, how do its facilities for that compare with BuildBot? QMTest would typically be used to drive individual 'test runs', presumably only over local networks,
Why presumably? Is there a limitation that prevents it from going out to the web?
No. I'm just speculating what users might do with it.
and can then be used during the aggregation of the results of such test runs into test reports.
As such, it is complementary to the facilities offered by buildbot.
Can you explain why it makes sense to use two systems?
I'm not quite sure I understand the question. Automating builds (scheduling build processes triggered by some events) is quite different from managing test databases.
So QMTest doesn't schedule build/test processes? It's just a database manager?
How could this be useful for boost ? A good question, but I'm more interested in "how Boost might use it." That is, something like, "We'd set up a server with a test database. QMTest would run on the server and drive testing on each testers' machines, ..." etc.
Still looking for that.
Yes, I realize that. But as I indicated earlier, I'm not convinced QMTest is a good tool to schedule / drive that.
I meant I want some kind of analogous statement about a way we could use it that you *are* convinced of.
I'd use a buildbot setup for that. (Of course you may argue that it is hard to convince potential testers to install yet another piece of software, but that's a different argument, I think.)
I'm not worried about that at this point.
I'm not sure. boost.build would need to be extended to allow QMTest to gain access to the database structure (the database already exists, conceptually, in terms of the directory layout...). Volodya ?
There's no a priori reason that Boost.Build needs to maintain the test database, is there?
No.
So what are the alternatives to that arrangement? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com The Astoria Seminar ==> http://www.astoriaseminar.com