[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Treating tests as special case
From: |
Pjotr Prins |
Subject: |
Re: Treating tests as special case |
Date: |
Thu, 5 Apr 2018 10:39:15 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 08:05:39AM +0200, Gábor Boskovits wrote:
> Actually running tests test the behaviour of a software. Unfortunately
> reproducible build does not guarantee reproducible behaviour.
> Furthermore there are still cases, where the environment is
> not the same around these running software, like hardware or
> kernel configuration settings leaking into the environment.
> These can be spotted by running tests. Nondeterministic
> failures can also be spotted more easily. There are a lot of
> packages where pulling tests can be done, I guess, but probably not
> for all of them. WDYT?
Hi Gabor,
If that were a real problem we should not be providing substitutes -
same problem. With substitutes we also provide software with tests
that have been run once (at least).
We should not forbid people to run tests. But I don't think it should
be the default once tests have been run in a configuation.
Think of it as functional programming. In my opinion rerunning tests
can be cached.
My point is that we should not overestimate/overdo the idea of
leakage. Save the planet. We have responsibility.
Pj.
Re: Treating tests as special case, Ricardo Wurmus, 2018/04/05