Re: [boost] Maintenance Guidelines wiki page (Revison 8)

Subject: Re: [boost] Maintenance Guidelines wiki page (Revison 8)
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-26 15:17:55

Hi,
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steven Watanabe" <watanabesj_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 6:33 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Maintenance Guidelines wiki page (Revison 8)

> 
> AMDG
> 
> David Abrahams wrote:
>>> [C]   5. Test
>>> [C]         1. Test headers [developer]
>>> [C]               1. Include each header files twice [developer]
>>> [I]               2. include each couple of header files in both orders
>>> [C]               3. Include all header files
>>> [C]               4. link all the header files twice
>>>
>>> A* See if the Jamfile to test the headers from Steve can be adapted to
>>> tests (Steve?)
>>>     
>>
>> I don't know what that means.
>>   
> 
> The Jamfile in libs/units/test_headers handles 5.1.1, 5.1.3, and 5.1.4
> 
>>> 5.1.2 Include each couple of header files in both orders
>>>     
>>
>> Testing all possible orderings seems impractical.  I could be wrong of
>> course...
>>   
> 
> It's definitely impractical to test every possible pair.  Even if it is 
> restricted to stay within a
> single library, this would be many thousands of compilations...

Have someone measure the time that it will take already? 
Can this kind of test runed once a week?
 
I don't know very well bjam, but can the following variation of you Jamfile compile in include_all_rev the same files than in include_all but included in reverse order. If yes at least this test could improve the test coverage.

Vicente

headers = ;
headers_rev = ;

rule setup ( ) {
  for local file in [ path.glob-tree ../../../../boost/interthreads : *.hpp :  ] {
    headers += $(file) ;
    headers_rev = $(file) $(headers_rev) ;
  }
}

tests = [ setup ] ;

generate-include-all-cpp include_all : $(headers) ;
generate-include-all-cpp include_all_rev : $(headers_rev) ;