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

From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-22 13:32:17

Reece Dunn wrote:

> 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.

I thought that's what it already did!  Isn't that the whole point of the
BJAM system?  Is there not a way to "compose" Jamfile(s) into a one so that
only dependent tests are run?  Just a thought.

More food for thought.  The serialization library relies on spirit.  The
current version of spirit (1.8?) doesn't build on older platforms such as VC
6.  For me this isn't a problem. For testing on other platforms spirit 1.61
will have to be installed in a "known" place.  These kind of testing tweaks
can occur inside the runtest.sh but that would inhibit the composition of
Jamfiles described above. - maybe this is not a consideration.

I recognize that the current testing procedure is exhaustive and that's a
good thing.  If I were to add exhaustive testing of the serialization
library (35 tests * 5 archives (maybe 10) * 2 (debug/release) * 2 (dll/lib)
* 8 compilers ) that would be 5600 build and run tests. This would take a
while. (I havn't included polymorphic archive versions which would double
this).  So I'm resigned to the fact that I'm not going to be able to test
exhaustively on a continuing basis.  I would like to be able to solicite a
test for a given combination on demand.

Robert Ramey