Re: [boost] Beta posted for new regression tests

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
>  >files.
>  >
>  >Oh :(
>  >I guess I have no choice but to integrate the Python tests with
> testing.jam
>  >then. It's probably just as well, but I wasn't ready for this right
> now...
>
> Wouldn't it be better to wait for Boost.Build V2?  I thought it was
fairly
> eminent.

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
being
> 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
concerned.

>  >>  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
the
> test type (comple, run, run-fail, etc).  I hope V2 will be able to put
that
> information in the residue, or write it to the log.
>
>  >That makes modularizing very difficult. If you want the testing rules
to
>  >generate a file that describes all the tests which get run, that would
be
>  >relatively easy to do, I think...
>
> Yes, that would be nice. But I'd rather not ask for incremental changes
to
> V1, unless something is totally broken.

Well, thanks. I guess I shouldn't have raised the issue of Python testing
right now ;-)

-Dave