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

From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-22 16:28:40

On Sat, 22 May 2004 17:12:26 -0400, David Abrahams wrote
> "Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]> writes:
> I don't see that as a need, or neccessarily an advantage.  Only
> outdated tests get run.

You lost me on the outdated tests...
 
> 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?

Because I don't have the capability to do that across all boost libraries. 
I'm thinking I should be able to say things like: (not real syntax)
  bjam --torture_test --static_link_only
  bjam --basic_test --dynamic_link_only
  bjam --torture_test --all_link_options

I'm sure there's a way to set something like this up with Jamfile as well.
Obviously for it to be useful boost-wide we would need to get library authors
to agree to some standard.  As for regression testers their automated setup
could pick the level and linking options.  The linking options would save time
by not building 4 variations of a linked library for each compiler.  The basic
test level would save time by running less tests.

Jeff