On Nov 6, 2007, at 5:04 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Benoit Sigoure wrote on Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 01:24:11AM CET:On Nov 5, 2007, at 10:09 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:Would be good to also have a test with a program that does not exist,i.e., a test that exposes all aspects of `missing's functionality, OTOH, tests/missing*.test covers most of that already, so this is ok I guess.That's what I thought, do I need to write more tests?I guess you can just fold that into the same test.
OK.
I find the testsuite slow enough despite my 2Ghz Core2Duo ;o (It'll be better with make -j2, once we include the parallel test feature :D)But you do know how to limit testing? cd tests && TESTS=foo.test make -e check # VERBOSE=yes
Yes, I even mentioned that for some reason `make check' didn't run my new test but `make check -C tests TESTS=ammissingprog.test' worked fine. I like to distcheck before sending patches / pushing, but it takes an awful lot of time (be it for Automake or Autoconf). By the way, is there a buildfarm or some sort of automated build system that tests each commit on a wide range of different configurations? (or at least in the most common ones?)
Cheers, -- Benoit Sigoure aka Tsuna EPITA Research and Development Laboratory
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
