From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-24 10:11:22
----- Original Message -----
From: "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>; <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] Beta posted for new regression tests
> At 10:03 AM 7/24/2002, David Abrahams wrote:
> >> > I'll ask again: what residue
> >> >are you using?
> >> In the target directory, the .output, .success, .failure, and .test
> >Oh :(
> >I guess I have no choice but to integrate the Python tests with
> >then. It's probably just as well, but I wasn't ready for this right
> Wouldn't it be better to wait for Boost.Build V2? I thought it was
eminent, sure, but I'm not sure how imminent it is ;-)
> It would be much easier to maintain the XML and status table generation
> code if lot of test information was reported in one file, rather than
> spread over so many files. I'm hoping V2 will be able to handle that.
That's probably easy enough to do with v1, at least as far as residue is
> >> From the bjam output, the compile, link, and run messages.
> >> From the Jamfile, the "run", "run-fail", "compile", "compile-fail",
> >> "link", and "link-fail" entries.
> >Really, you're scanning the Jamfile?
> Yes, and it is a real kludge. But I couldn't see any other way to get
> test type (comple, run, run-fail, etc). I hope V2 will be able to put
> information in the residue, or write it to the log.
> >That makes modularizing very difficult. If you want the testing rules
> >generate a file that describes all the tests which get run, that would
> >relatively easy to do, I think...
> Yes, that would be nice. But I'd rather not ask for incremental changes
> V1, unless something is totally broken.
Well, thanks. I guess I shouldn't have raised the issue of Python testing
right now ;-)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk