From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-04 11:16:06
David Abrahams wrote:
> Okay, here are some issues I think ought to be solved, in no
> particular order, some (much) more important than others:
I'm happy to see you bring up much the same points I mentioned.
Here is one I haven't yet got to, and would like to explore a bit
> * generating XML by parsing the jam log is fragile and prevents the
> use of multiple build processes (-jN). This one should be almost
> embarassingly easy to fix.
I think there is more to this than only the ability to run tests in
parallel. For example, it would help to robustify the testing harness
if the 'test database' could be inspected without actually executing
any test. By that I mean the ability to:
* See all tests, as part of the test database structure (i.e. their
organization into test suites)
* See meta data associated with tests, such as
- what kind of test
- expected outcome, per platform
- dependencies, prerequisites, etc.
In fact, this wishlist is influenced by the fact that I'm working on
QMTest (http://www.codesourcery.com/qmtest), where these aspects are
an important part of the overall design.
(In fact, I have been trying to convince Vladimir to make it possible
to hook bbv2 (at least the part related to testing) up with QMTest
in support of the above features.
Note also that test report generation and a graphical user interface are
an integral part of QMTest.)
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk