Re: (not) testing Rust packages?!

[Efraim Flashner]

On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 08:46:48AM -0800, John Soo wrote:
> Hi Hartmut and Martin,
> 
> I think it makes sense to run tests now.
> 
> > Part of the reason is that bringing tests for a given library can bring in 
> > a massive amount of dependencies.
> 
> I think that we are getting close to having complete dependencies for most 
> rust packages we have and most are declared in the package definition. 
> 
> Furthermore since most rust libraries we have are not executables, we could 
> still skip the build and run the tests I think. Aren’t the two phases 
> completely separate for cargo?
> 
> Other downsides I see for not skipping the build are really increasing the 
> store size.  Would skipping builds but still running tests increase the store 
> size at all?
> 
> I like the idea of having tests, too.  Plus I’d like to see the cargo build 
> system come closer to the standard package definition.
> 

In addition, since we don't actually need any of the results of the
crates, it does provide a quick way to notice if we've provided the
wrong version of a dependency. I also noticed that we're missing
rust-average-0.9 which is definitely needed for rust-rand-0.6 and I'm
sure others.

If we enable building and tests and are lenient with skipping tests,
that alone would be an improvement.

-- 
Efraim Flashner   <address@hidden>   אפרים פלשנר
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D  14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature