Boost Testing :
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-02-04 21:32:01
Misha Bergal <mbergal_at_[hidden]> writes:
> Martin Wille wrote:
>> David Abrahams schrieb:
>>> David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>>> When I pass --incremental I always delete the old bjam.log first because
>>>> otherwise regression.py will just append to the existing one. Am I
>>>> doing the right thing?
> > AFAICS, deleting bjam.log is not the reason for the holes. The reason
> > usually is some problem with parsing bjam.log in order to produce the
> > XML files.
> Martin is completely right. At the end, whether you delete it or not
> does not matter too much.
Well, the holes seem to be gone now, FWIW.
> Here the simplified explanation of what is
> going on:
> process_jam_log analyzes bjam output and extracts compile, link and run
> actions results and output.
Yes. For tests that passed the last time around, it will not find
anything to extract if I clear bjam.log
> The result and output for each found action
> is stored in .xml file in the target directory of test or library (where
> its .obj, .exe and other files are). If .xml file already exists there,
> it gets loaded, processed action overrides the corresponding section and
> saved in the target directory again.
Maybe an aborted test run would cause the holes, if I stopped it
before all the xml files were done being created?
> After process_jam_log is done, regression.py searches whole bin.v2
> directory for those .xml files (test results), packages them into one
> big file, zips it and uploads to meta-comm.com
> In case of incremental run only the small number of those .xml
> files/test results are updated, but all of them still get collected by
> regression.py and sent to us.
> Deleting of bjam.log just saves you some process_jam_log processing time
> and should not change any results.
Hm. Thanks for the explanation.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com