[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH 1/2] tests: make test runner a script, not a shell function

From: Jim Meyering
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] tests: make test runner a script, not a shell function
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 09:57:22 +0200

Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 June 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>> * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 11:12:23PM CEST:
>> > Maybe we should also say that using TESTS_ENVIRONMENT to define a custom
>> > test runner is now not only strongly deprecated (as it already was I hope),
>> No it wasn't.
> D'oh.  I'll be more explicit about that in the NEWS entry then.
>> "test runner" is not a term I would recognize, btw.
> Suggestion on how to improve it are welcome.  As usual, I couldn't come
> up with a better or clearer term :-(
>> > but also unsupported and not working anymore?
>> > Also, should I look for TESTS_ENVIRONMENT usages in google code search?
>> > I was really hoping to spae myself the pain... ;-)
>> Not sure.  If anything, you can use regexes to avoid stuff you're not
>> interested in.
>> > > and if not, is it possible to have a compatible one (without too much
>> > > maintenance effort duplication)?  No need to go the effort right away.
>> > >
>> > Well, we could add a new option "old-parallel-tests" or something like
>> > that, that causes the old code in '' (with few tweaks in order
>> > to support the new parsing of `.log' files) to be used instead of the
>> > 'test-driver' script.  By refactoring some code in handle_tests(), we
>> > could ensure not to add any real complexity to the automake script
>> > (w.r.t. to my patches at least); but the duplication between ''
>> > and 'test-driver' will unavoidable IMHO.
>> Well, if we need to use a name, then the name should be for the new one.
>> That way you can have full backward compatibility.
> I'd rather give the user an incentive to move forward, by having him
> retain the old semantics only if he really needs to.
> [...]

Hi Stefano,

I've seen a few projects that require their automake-managed tests
be run sequentially.  I suspect that some maintainers will not be eager
to adapt their tests to run in parallel solely to accommodate a newer
version of automake.  If you have only a dozen or so tests, whether they
run in sequence or parallel doesn't make a big difference, but the work
required to "upgrade" may be considerable.

I urge you not to impose such a change.
There are already too many projects that require some ancient
version of automake.  Let's not make it hard to upgrade.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]