* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 09:42:08PM CET: > On Monday 13 December 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > I'm undecided on this one. On the one hand, the safety increase is a > > plus, but on the other hand, the tests become less readable, if only > > because it is less obvious what is going on. If you don't remember, > > you have to start reading the generated configure.in file after > > rerunning the test with keep_testdirs=:. > > > > Hmm. There is precedent with the 'parallel_tests' settings, > > > Speaking against my own "interest" (i.e. seeing the patch applied), > I must say that the 'parallel_tests' setting was more "compelled", > since it was needed for having generated tests that are just a thin > layer around their sister tests. > > > but even that looks unobvious to me, just like those actions > > triggered by a 'required' setting other than "is this test > > run or not". > > > Maybe we could solve this problem with a new `write_configure' > subroutine in tests/defs, so that we could end up having e.g.:
That's better because of this: > I like this idea because, as a general rule, I think that "explicit > is better than implicit". Also, the `write_configure' subroutine might > be easily extended in the future, to provide additional goodies. WDYT? but it still has the same problems with respect to the test being obvious and copy-pasteable. Again: what is the risk here that this change is trying to avoid (which presumably was the reason for it in the first place)? Thanks, Ralf
