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

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-22 16:12:26

"Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]> writes:

> On Sat, 22 May 2004 13:18:41 -0400, David Abrahams wrote
>> > I like the idea of specifying the test level (basic, torture, concept).
>> 
>> I am opposed to the idea of requiring humans to initiate the right
>> tests, at least without proof that mechanically-initiated tests are
>> unworkable.  I don't think we've proven that yes.
>
> They shouldn't be human initiated -- just configured to one level or another.
>  Now obviously a human would need to intervene to reset the level, but that
> would only be in the case of ramping up to release, adding a new library,
> adding a new compiler, or a specific author request.  I believe this would be
> rather infrequent.
>
> Basically, right now we have no way of setting up a Jamfile that can satisfy
> the need to have full up tests for new compilers, etc and a basic set of quick
> tests...short of replacing the Jamfile all the time.

I don't see that as a need, or neccessarily an advantage.  Only
outdated tests get run.

That said, of course we do have a way:

  # foo.jam

  if $(Not_Defined)
  {
     # torture tests go here
  }

In what way is commenting out the "if" line and checking in the
jamfile significantly different from other mechanisms one might use to
alter the set of tests that get run?

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com