Re: [boost] Re: Beta posted for new regression tests

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-23 09:56:07

At 10:28 AM 7/23/2002, Gennadiy Rozental wrote:

 >I am working right now on integration bjam-based testing with new test
 >library.

Good!

 >One thing I found that list of test is incomplete."format" test
 >are missing for example and a lot more.

Yes. We need to do a review to make sure tests aren't omitted.

 > Another thing: is there any reason why
 >do we test only array1 among all array tests?.

My guess is that dates from the old regression tests, which we tried to 
keep minimal because each tests was being built and run every time. With 
the bjam based tests, that is no longer an issue.

There used to be some incentive to keep the size of the Status Table 
small.  But I expect we will switch to reporting only a summary of tests 
which pass all compilers, and give a detail report only on those which 
warn, fail, or are missing.

 > Also as I mentioned in some
 >other post, current Jamfile has a problem with function_test. Look into 
you
 >table: you have one function test, while in fact Jamfile has two. I 
managed
 >to create complete list.

Ah! Both were named function_test.cpp.  When that happens, the test has to 
be given an explicit name.

 > Will you be interested in updated status/Jamfile?

Of course!  If the changes are extensive, it might be a good idea to send 
it to me first for a test on a different machine.  If there are just minor 
fixes like the function name problem above, I don't see any reason not to 
just go ahead and check it in.

By the way, what did you think of the Compiler Status table itself?  Did 
you find the links helpful?

Thanks,

--Beman