| 1 |
On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 15:08 +0200, Piotr Jaroszyński wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hello, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> There was some discussion about forcing/not forcing tests in EAPI-1, but there |
| 5 |
> was clearly no compromise. Imho, tests are very important and thus I want to |
| 6 |
> discuss them a little more, but in more sensible fashion. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Firstly each test can be(not all categories are mutually exclusive): |
| 9 |
> - not existant |
| 10 |
> - non-functional |
| 11 |
> - not runnable from ebuild |
| 12 |
> - useful but unreasonable resource-wise |
| 13 |
> - useful and reasonable resource-wise |
| 14 |
> - necessary |
| 15 |
> - known to partially fail but with a way of skipping failing tests |
| 16 |
> - known to partially fail but with no easy way of skipping failing tests |
| 17 |
> Is that list comprehensive? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Secondly we must answer the question how precisely we want to distinguish |
| 20 |
> them, so users/dev can choose which categories of tests they want to run. |
| 21 |
> What comes to mind is: |
| 22 |
> - run all tests |
| 23 |
> - run only necessary tests |
| 24 |
> - run only reasonable tests |
| 25 |
> - don't run tests at all |
| 26 |
> Again, is that list comprehensive? |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Don't forget tests that have heavy requirements to run. Many gnome |
| 30 |
tests, for example, need a virtual X to run, which puts a new set of |
| 31 |
DEPENDS requirements on your system. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Daniel |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives