Re: [boost] Re: [Boost.Test] New testing procedure?

From: Reece Dunn (msclrhd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-22 10:47:42

Jeff Garland wrote:
>And that's today.  Consider during the next couple months 3-4 new libraries
>are pending to be added.  Serialization tests alone dramatically increase 
>the
>length of the time to run the regression if we always run the full test. 
>What
>will happen in a year when we have say 10 new libraries?
>
>Robert and I have believe something will need to be done.  We've tried to
>start a discussion, but no one responded:
>
>http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg64471.php
>http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg64491.php

I don't know how feasable this would be, but you might also want to consider 
library dependancies so that if you modify the iterator adaptors library you 
can pull a list of tests that need to be re-run because the associated 
libraries use iterator adaptors. This would reduce the number of tests that 
need to be performed on each cycle, but you'd need some way of archiving the 
results and only updating the ones that are re-run.

When testing a new platform/compiler/configuration, you can tell the test 
suite to run all the tests for that setup, but for the others (where it has 
already been run) it will operate as above, unless an explicit request for 
the full set of tests is provided (allowing for, say, the full set to be 
performed weekly while the dependant tests are performed daily/every 12 
hours).

I like the idea of specifying the test level (basic, torture, concept).

Regards,
Reece

_________________________________________________________________
Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now!  
http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/