Re: [boost] tests.jam

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-12 19:21:24

Nice work; here are my remarks:

1. You too: time to use argument lists!

2. Why did you add a separate run-unit-test? run-test is the one that should
be invoked from the unit-test rule. The problem with the old unit-test
functionality is that when the execution returns a non-zero result code, the
build action for the executable fails, so Jam deletes it. The next time you
try to do a test, the exe needs to be rebuilt. That's why run-test builds a
separate file that reflects the success of the test.

3. It would probably be a good idea to leave the unit-test rule in
boost-base, and have it cause tests.jam to be included if it hasn't been
already (heck, maybe it's time to use the new module system?)

4. When including build system .jam files, the procedure should be:

SEARCH on foo.jam = $(BOOST_BUILD_PATH) ;
include foo.jam

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joerg Walter" <jhr.walter_at_[hidden]>
To: "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 3:29 PM
Subject: [boost] tests.jam

Hi David,

I've started to refactor status/Jamfile and the unit-test rule from
boost-base.jam into tests.jam. I'll send my current version of the three
files attached.

If the implementation looks like intended, I'll continue with the open
points tomorrow.

Best regards

Joerg