From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-17 13:21:16
on Fri Aug 17 2007, Stefan Seefeld <seefeld-AT-sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> Would QMTest be used to drive multi-host testing across the internet
>> (i.e. at different testers' sites), or more likely just within local
>> networks? If the former, how do its facilities for that compare with
> QMTest would typically be used to drive individual 'test runs',
> presumably only over local networks,
Why presumably? Is there a limitation that prevents it from going out
to the web?
> and can then be used during the aggregation of the results of such
> test runs into test reports.
> As such, it is complementary to the facilities offered by buildbot.
Can you explain why it makes sense to use two systems?
>>> Another important point is scalability: While some test suites are
>>> simple and small, we also deal with test suites that hold many
>>> thousands of tests (QMTest is used for some of the GCC test suites,
>>> for example). A test can mean to run a single (local) executable, or
>>> require a compilation, an upload of the resulting executable to a
>>> target board
>> Target board?
> Yes (please note that 'target' here is not the same term used above).
> In the context here it refers to cross-compilation and cross-testing.
But what is it?
>>> How could this be useful for boost ?
>> A good question, but I'm more interested in "how Boost might use it."
>> That is, something like, "We'd set up a server with a test database.
>> QMTest would run on the server and drive testing on each testers'
>> machines, ..." etc.
Still looking for that.
>>> I believe the hardest part is the connection between QMTest and
>>> boost.build. Since boost.build doesn't provide the level of
>>> introspection QMTest promises, a custom 'boost.build test database'
>>> implementation needs some special hooks from the build system. I
>>> discussed that quite a bit with Vladimir.
>> And what came of it?
> I'm not sure. boost.build would need to be extended to allow
> QMTest to gain access to the database structure (the database
> already exists, conceptually, in terms of the directory layout...).
> Volodya ?
There's no a priori reason that Boost.Build needs to maintain the test
database, is there?
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com The Astoria Seminar ==> http://www.astoriaseminar.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk