[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: make check-expensive [was: [PATCH] rm, du, chmod, chown, chgrp: use

From: Jim Meyering
Subject: Re: make check-expensive [was: [PATCH] rm, du, chmod, chown, chgrp: use much less memory for large directories]
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:24:26 +0200

Bernhard Voelker wrote:

> On 08/24/2011 11:42 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Bernhard Voelker wrote:
>>> On 08/24/2011 10:49 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>>>> Voelker, Bernhard wrote:
>>>>> BTW: Wouldn't this test deserve a proper make target, e.g.
>>>>> "make check-expensive"?
>>>> Yes, good idea.
>>>> That would make it easier to run just those test.
>>>> However, hard-coding the list of expensive and very-expensive
>>>> tests would require doing the same sort of thing as is done
>>>> for root_tests (see check-root) in tests/,
>>>> where there'd be a hand-maintained list of expensive and very-expensive
>>>> tests (in tests/ as well as rules to run them and rules
>>>> to cross-check that the lists are complete, as is done in's
>>>> sc-root_tests rule.
>>> Wouldn't it be sufficient to add something like the following
>>> to the top-level
>>> check-expensive:
>>>     env RUN_EXPENSIVE_TESTS=yes make check
>>> check-very-expensive:
>>>     env RUN_VERY_EXPENSIVE_TESTS=yes make check
>> That would be sufficient if you don't mind running all of
>> the other tests, too.  Does a name like "check-expensive",
>> imply "all regular tests, plus the expensive ones"?
>> Would you expect "check-very-expensive" also to run the
>> "merely expensive" tests?  From what I recall, you'd have
>> to set RUN_EXPENSIVE_TESTS=yes, too, if you want that.
> Actually, such a shortcut would do the same as calling
> "env RUN_EXPENSIVE_TESTS=yes make check" today. So yes,
> I'd expect the cheaper ones also to be run.

If you would find some testing-related make shortcut to be useful,
please propose a patch, preferably without modifying all tests ;-)

> If this is not wanted, i.e. only the expensive tests should
> be run for the target check-expensive, then I don't like the
> idea to have another list. I'd rather let each test decide
> for itself, either calling very_expensive_, expensive_, or
> a new function not_expensive_ which would exit if none of
> This'd mean to have to touch all tests ...

reply via email to

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