From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2021-01-23 19:07:53
On 1/23/21 7:38 AM, Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote:
> On 1/23/21 3:47 PM, Tom Kent via Boost wrote:
>> I've got a couple raspberry pi 4's that are running tests (slowly, takes
>> 20+hrs to run the test suite...any earlier models just didn't have enough
>> ram). Look at the teeks99-05* (armv71/armhf) and teeks99-06* (aarch64).
> I appreciate your and all other testers efforts in running the test
> suite, but I must confess that I pay almost no attention to the official
> test matrix these days because:
The boost test matrix is the most complete and reliable display of the
current state of the the boost packages. I do run the more moder CI
stuff, but it's often failing for some issue or another totally
unrelated to my library. It's the gold standard as far as I'm concerned.
> - No notifications of build/test failures or test completions. Having to
> manually visit the page from time to time is a problem, especially given
This bothers me not at all.
> - Slow turnaround times. As I remember, for some testers the turnaround
> time was days and weeks. For others it was better, but still not as good
> as AppVeyor, which usually sends the notification in a few hours after
> the commit.
> - Problematic debugging. Often the report shows a failure, but the error
> log is not accessible. This seems to be a long standing problem. This
> makes the whole testing process pointless, as I cannot do anything about
> the failures.
I have difficulties sifting through the test output on all platforms.
(I've been roundly ridiculed for this complaint. But it means nothing
to me - I wear their ridicule as a badge of honor.) I have my own
solution which I run on my own machine - library_status which presents a
table which is actually more useful to me than the official boost one
not to mention the Appveyor one. Now If I could get library_status to
run as part of the CI solutions ...
> I wish the current testing infrastructure was replaced with something
> more modern, CI-style, as I don't believe the above issues will be fixed
> any time soon.
I've made a worthy proposal for that (to be used in addition to the
current boost test matrix). Again, got a lot of ridicule on that one too.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk