On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:31 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 22:49:39 +1000 > Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 9:45 PM, John Arbash Meinel >> <j...@arbash-meinel.com> wrote: >> > I don't specifically know what is in those 340 tests, but 18min/340 = >> > 3.2s for each test. Which is *much* longer than simple smoke tests would >> > have to be. >> >> The counts Barry is referring to there are actually counting test >> *files*, rather than individual tests. We only have 359 of those in >> total though (not counting those in subdirectories), so a "quicktest" >> that omits less than 6% of them doesn't sound particularly quick (even >> if it does leave out the slowest ones). >> >> We should probably do another pass and add a few more tests to the >> blacklist in the Makefile template (starting with >> test_concurrent_futures). > > Does anyone use "make quicktest" for something useful? > There is a reason the regression test suite has many tests... > "Blacklisting" some of them sounds like a bad thing to do.
Oops, lost a bit too much context when I changed the thread title. This discussion started with Barry looking for a "smoke test" that would be quick enough to run that more people would be willing to use it to pick up gratuitous breakage due to a bad merge rather than leaving it for the buildbots to discover. Currently even "make quicktest" takes too long to run to be suitable for that task. Leaving out a couple more egregiously slow tests and possibly updating it to use the "-j" switch might make for a usable option. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
