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

From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-22 14:37:39

Robert Ramey writes:
> Dave Abrahams wrote:
> 
> > maybe we need to move to a
> > different model wherein the test library's own tests are run on a CVS
> > branch of the code (?)  so that Gennadiy can see and deal with his
> > problems before they are merged into the main trunk and break
> > everything else?
> 
> Clearly, test the test (meta-testing ?) is a special category.  I needs to
> be staged to be tested itself before being used to test other stuff.
> 
> I believe boost testing is going to be an issue in the near future do the
> fact that testing time is getting longer and longer and longer.
> 
> I believe we will have to move to an "on demand" model for most testing
> while reserving "total coverage" testing for just prior to release.  

I don't agree. As a developer, I want to see the breakage as early as 
possible, and "no continuos testing" model would prevent me from that. 
The last thing I want is to deal with accumulated failures when I wasn't
expecting it.

IMO the asnwer to a long testing cycle is

a) incremental cylces, with a full rebuild once a week or something similar
   (here at Meta, for instance, are currently doing full rebuild on every 
   cycle);
   
b) distributed testing of libraries, with the following merging of results 
   into a single report.
   
--
Aleksey Gurtovoy
MetaCommunications Engineering