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

From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-23 00:54:25

Jeff Garland wrote:

> Well as soon as Robert wants to run the torture test he's going to get it
> at all sites if he controls it via his Jamfile.  So we need some 
> boost-wide option to define these variations.  Hopefully my other email
> clarifies the idea.

My concern was raised base on the following scenario:

a) I get things working to taste on the 3 or 4 compilers I have installed.
b) I check in to CVS
c) Test is run - takes a long time 
d) But shows some problems in the 5 compilers I don't have
e) Now I start to fix stuff - more or less one compiler at a time
f) Now much computer resource are used to no good purpose.  I can't stop the
test from running on the compilers that I know will fail anyway.
g) Now my interest shifts to another compiler and a whole different set of
wasted effort is done.
....
q) Now everything is spiffy
r) test runs - but only those tests that are dependant on something that has
changed.  The situation is tolerable - until something changes that changes
the library - then caos

from q onward the problem might be manageable if BJAM was could manage
dependencies from  are particular x.hpp -> y.cpp -> test.cpp.  But as it is
now, if one *.cpp file in the library has to be rebuilt, all the test that
depend on any portion of the library have to be run.  I realize this is an
unrealistic hope but we're allowed to dream.

So checking in a new Jamfile to customize at test is OK but it still leaves
me with doing all the compilers even though I know it's a waste of time.

Robert Ramey