Re: [boost] [EXTERNAL] [graph] Sync develop with master?

Subject: Re: [boost] [EXTERNAL] [graph] Sync develop with master?
From: Belcourt, Kenneth (kbelco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-08-09 23:17:58

> On Aug 9, 2016, at 8:37 PM, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 8:47 PM, Belcourt, Kenneth <kbelco_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> On Aug 9, 2016, at 11:57 AM, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Belcourt, Kenneth <kbelco_at_[hidden]>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Aug 9, 2016, at 5:21 AM, Murray Cumming <murrayc_at_[hidden]>
>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Di, 2016-06-28 at 17:32 +0000, Belcourt, Kenneth wrote:
>>>>>> The recent changes to the testing infrastructure has slowed this down
>>>>>> as it’s now less-convenient to test that it was previously
>>>>> 
>>>>> Is this something different than this?
>>>>> https://github.com/boostorg/graph#running-tests

>>>> 
>>>> Related.  I used to be able to edit status/Jamfile and remove all but a
>>>> handful of libraries that I’d then test all together (so I could for
>>>> example, test Graph, GraphParallel, MPI, etc.. all at once).  The
>> currently
>>>> testing model doesn’t easily support testing multiple Boost libraries at
>>>> one time and this slows me down.
>>> 
>>> Did you see my response at the time you brought this up on the command
>> line
>>> options that let you control that? (i.e. the --limit-tests= option) Just
>>> wondering as I'm willing to add support for what you need if what's there
>>> is not enough.
>> 
>> Hi Rene,
>> 
>> Well, it’s just more typing than I want to do though it’s fine for 3
>> libraries, it doesn’t scale well for, say, 30 libraries.
>> 
> 
> But you had to type it in some form at some point the way it was before
> also, right?

No, before I just removed blocks of libraries I didn’t want to test from the Jamfile.v2.  A few vi block deletes and I was ready to test.

> b2 "--limit-tests=graph|graph_parallel|mpi”
>> 
>> Could we add support for a comma separator, or change the vertical
>> separator to a comma?
>> 
> 
> Sure, I could add a comma separator. Would it also help if I added an
> inverse? i.e. an "--exclude-tests" option?

This could be useful.  But let me see if I can articulate the use case I’m really after.

I want to change some arbitrary piece of code in some library, and have some ability to test every library that depends on the library I just modified.  Now I can do this by running b2 from the status directory once up front, but that builds and tests everything once.  But once I have everything built, then modifying some piece of code and rerunning b2 from status will only test what’s out of date.  So that’s my current fall back.

Granted my old hack of deleting libraries from status/Jamfile didn’t accomplish this use case either, but it was fairly easy to test a largish number of libraries.

— Noel


> 
> -- 
> -- Rene Rivera
> -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
> -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net

> -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost