Hi Ævar,
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> Let's get some numbers then. On master, go to the "t" directory and run
> this:
>
> for f in t[0-9]*.sh; do (echo '#!/bin/sh' && echo "echo ok 1 $f" && echo
> sleep 1 && echo echo 1..1) >$f; done
>
> That effectively turns all o
On Wed, Jan 30 2019, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi Ævar,
>
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 30 2019, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, 29 Jan 2019, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, Jan 29 2019, Jeff King wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Tu
Hi Ævar,
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30 2019, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 29 Jan 2019, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Jan 29 2019, Jeff King wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 06:56:08AM -0800, Derrick Stolee via
> >> >
On Wed, Jan 30 2019, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi Ævar,
>
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2019, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 29 2019, Jeff King wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 06:56:08AM -0800, Derrick Stolee via
>> > GitGitGadget wrote:
>> >
>> >> From: Derrick Stolee
>> >>
>> >>
Hi Ævar,
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29 2019, Jeff King wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 06:56:08AM -0800, Derrick Stolee via
> > GitGitGadget wrote:
> >
> >> From: Derrick Stolee
> >>
> >> When running the test suite for code coverage using
> >> 'make
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 10:03:46PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> > I think these are reasonable to have (and I personally much prefer
> > "prove" to the raw "make test" output anyway).
>
> I wonder if anyone would mind if we removed the non-prove path.
>
> When I added it in 5099b99d25
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 03:49:58PM -0500, Derrick Stolee wrote:
> On 1/29/2019 1:10 PM, Derrick Stolee wrote:
> > On 1/29/2019 12:34 PM, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 04:58:27PM +0100, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> >> And in the related email discussion [1]:
> >>
> >> But even though t
On Tue, Jan 29 2019, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 06:56:08AM -0800, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget
> wrote:
>
>> From: Derrick Stolee
>>
>> When running the test suite for code coverage using
>> 'make coverage-test', a single test failure stops the
>> test suite from completing.
On 1/29/2019 1:10 PM, Derrick Stolee wrote:
> On 1/29/2019 12:34 PM, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 04:58:27PM +0100, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
>> And in the related email discussion [1]:
>>
>> But even though the docs claim it [-j] should be possible,
>> I've been getting "random" te
On 1/29/2019 12:34 PM, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 04:58:27PM +0100, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> And in the related email discussion [1]:
>
> But even though the docs claim it [-j] should be possible,
> I've been getting "random" test failures when compiled with coverage
> suppor
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 04:58:27PM +0100, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 06:56:08AM -0800, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget
> wrote:
> > @@ -3077,6 +3080,10 @@ coverage-test: coverage-clean-results
> > coverage-compile
> > $(MAKE) CFLAGS="$(COVERAGE_CFLAGS)" LDFLAGS="$(COVERAGE_
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 11:37:34AM -0500, Derrick Stolee wrote:
> > I'm afraid that this issue would badly affect 'coverage-prove' as well
> > (I didn't try). Or if doesn't (anymore?), then that should be
> > mentioned in the commit message, and then perhaps it's time to remove
> > that '-j1' fro
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 11:35:41AM -0500, Derrick Stolee wrote:
> > For people who don't have "prove" available, I think they could just do
> > "make -k test" to make sure the full suite runs. Should we perhaps be
> > doing that automatically in the sub-make run by coverage-test?
>
> I wanted to
On 1/29/2019 10:58 AM, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 06:56:08AM -0800, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget
> wrote:
>> +prove: all
>> +$(MAKE) -C t/ prove
>> +
>
> You don't need this 'prove' target in the "main" Makefile, because
> 'make test' will run the test suite using DEFAUL
On 1/29/2019 11:00 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 06:56:08AM -0800, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget
> wrote:
>
>> From: Derrick Stolee
>>
>> When running the test suite for code coverage using
>> 'make coverage-test', a single test failure stops the
>> test suite from completing.
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 06:56:08AM -0800, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote:
> From: Derrick Stolee
>
> When running the test suite for code coverage using
> 'make coverage-test', a single test failure stops the
> test suite from completing. This leads to significant
> undercounting of cover
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 06:56:08AM -0800, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote:
> When running the test suite for code coverage using
> 'make coverage-test', a single test failure stops the
> test suite from completing. This leads to significant
> undercounting of covered blocks.
>
> Add two new
Hi Stolee,
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote:
> From: Derrick Stolee
>
> When running the test suite for code coverage using
> 'make coverage-test', a single test failure stops the
> test suite from completing. This leads to significant
> undercounting of covered blocks
From: Derrick Stolee
When running the test suite for code coverage using
'make coverage-test', a single test failure stops the
test suite from completing. This leads to significant
undercounting of covered blocks.
Add two new targets to the Makefile:
* 'prove' runs the test suite using 'prove'.
19 matches
Mail list logo