From: João Abecasis (jpabecasis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-19 09:21:08
Kevin Wheatley wrote:
> João Abecasis wrote:
>> What do others think about this? I'd like to hear your comments on the
>> approach and implementation, as well as bug reports ;-)
> In general I like the idea as a feature for my own use too.
> Bug? When you have 0 found headers in a directory though you get an
> error relating to the lack of tests...
> *** argument error
> * rule test-suite ( suite-name : tests + )
> * called with: ( repository.headers : )
> * missing argument tests
Aha! In this case, I'm not sure it is a bug. test-suite is part of
Boost.Build-testing and it provides a way of grouping together a set of
tests under a virtual target name. Hmmm... Then again, perhaps I should
provide my own virtual name for the headers tests as well. I'll look
Thanks for reporting!
In the meantime the workaround is to skip the test-suite and directly use,
import headers ;
headers dirs ;
> Not sure about the the weird escaped values for the test
> objects/executables/etc. looks odd.
> MkDir1 bin/directory%2finclude%2fsomeincludefile%2eh.test
Right. I also find these odd. The problem is I need to give each header
test a unique name. By default this would be the filename minus path and
file-extension which is prone to collisions. I sticked to this scheme
only because it is simple and reversible, although other escaping
mechanisms are possible. Another option would be to use a
non-descriptive sequential naming scheme:
, possibly outputting the corresponding header paths to a separate file.
I've tried both approaches locally.
Or maybe I can skip naming the tests... I'll look into this possibility,
which would be tied to the fix for the issue above.
Thanks for your comments!
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk