From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-12 08:33:05
Martin Wille <mw8329_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> If our
>> testing was more focused, we could cycle the tests more often too.
> We could cycle more often if all test programs could
> be compiled and run rather fast. However, this is not
> the case currently.
> Authors of tests probably are unaware of the compile/
> run time their tests need on the systems/compilers
> they don't use themselves (e.g. random_test takes
> _very_ long to compile here).
I agree that egregiously long build times for a test make it
prohibitive; those tests need to be fixed. That has been a particular
problem with the random library for at least a year and a half.
We could also go back to an arrangement in which only outdated tests
get run again, so tests that failed last time but for which no
dependencies changed wouldn't run again.
That said, I don't believe test cycle time is the real problem here.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk