Boost logo

Boost :

From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-28 12:00:44

David Abrahams wrote:
> "Robert Ramey" <ramey_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> That was my original point. If I'm not making any changes, which
>> I haven't been, almost no failures have anything to do with the
>> serialization code.

> But we want to find out when changes to other Boost libraries break
> it. And we want to find out when other people break it.

Which was my other point. Using one library(1) as a test on another
library(2) isn't an efficient usage of resources. If this is deemed
its really an indication that the tests for library (2) have insufficient
coverage and this should be fixed. Of course, I see the whole thing
being tested before "release" but this would be an special occasion.

>>> Also, you could cut the testing time by 2/3 instantly if you'd just
>>> test all the archive types in a single executable, rather than
>>> building a separate executable for each one.
>> Hmmm - that was what I did originally but it was objected to
>> in the first review.
> On what grounds?

If I remember correctly. that the tests where very large and complex,
and not sufficiently focused.

>> Also, more compilers failed with due to resource exhaustion.
> On some weaker compilers you might have to break a few tests into
> multiple translation units.

ahh - more work

>> The current system also lets me run just one archive by
>> adding a command line argument - extremely useful.

> I noticed. It's not only useful, but necessary, to cut down on the
> number of targets the Jamfile generates.

> All of that should be possible even with the tests built into a single
> executable.

at the cost of making the test program more complex. And to
make tests run faster in order to generate results that aren't very
useful to me anyhow.

> The importance, to Boost as a whole, of having continuous testing of
> all libraries should not be underestimated.

or overestimated.

I'm not really objecting to testing - heck my main sin is creating "too
many" tests and testing every combination which could possibly fail.
(An XP maxim). In my view - other libraries don't have enough tests.
Actually, everytime a bug slips through it should occasion adding
a new test to the suite.

But, constant testing using one library to test
other libraries is a poor substitute for not adding more tests in the
that actually has the bug. Another issue is that we're not really testing
our libraries - we're testing other compilers and standard libraries with
our own code so we can add workarounds, jamfile tweaks, etc.

I understand that this has worked well in the past but it isn't scaling
I'm going to guess that as the "release" system evolves along lines being
discussed, its going to percipitate a parallel evolution in the test system
as well - we'll see.

Robert Ramey

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at