Re: [Boost-build] Idiom for running tests using (non-test) target?

Subject: Re: [Boost-build] Idiom for running tests using (non-test) target?
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-10-25 16:20:17

AMDG

Mat Marcus wrote:
> [ It seems that you replied off-list, so I do too this time, in case
> it wasn't unintentional. Feel free to quote this message on list if
> you like ]
>   

Whoops.

> On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Steven Watanabe <watanabesj_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>   
>> AMDG
>>
>> Mat Marcus wrote:
>>     
>>> Thanks, this is a helpful start. Now, when I build the "exe" target,
>>> the executable builds as expected. But when I run the test, the
>>> executable gets deleted, even it was built earlier. I'd like to be
>>> able to invoke bjam a single time, without having to pass
>>> --preserve-test-targets, so that the test is run *and* the  executable
>>> is preserved. Is this possible? Put another way, can the run rule make
>>> use of an existing artifact without deleting it, without having to
>>> pass options to bjam?
>>>
>>>       
>> Ok.  I think that run should only delete the
>> targets that it creates,
>>     
>
> I agree!
>
>   
>> but changing it looks non-trivial.
>>     
>
> Sorry to hear it.
>   

I'll think about this some more, since this is really the
best solution.  Wait--make-test sets the <location-prefix>
feature to a unique directory.  It ought to be possible to
write a generator that searches the dependency graph for
targets that have this feature set correctly.

>> Can you use the unit-test rule instead?
>>
>> exe a : a.cpp ;
>> unit-test a_test : a : <testing.arg>"-a -b -c ..." ;
>>
>>     
>
> This works, in the sense that it doesn't delete the executable. But it
> is not a usable workaround for me since the test no longer fits in
> with the others in my test suite. The unit-test rule uses a different
> output format from the run rule  (e.g. unit-test writes the test
> output to stdout instead of to a file), and it looks like it generates
> different output files.
>
> Is there a way to place a property/feature like
> <preserve-test-targets> somewhere in the run rule?
>   

That would be easy.  The test in testing.capture-output
just needs to change from

    if ! $(preserve-test-targets)

to

    if ! $(preserve-test-targets) && [ property.select 
<preserve-test-targets> : $(properties) ] == <preserve-test-targets>off

In Christ,
Steven Watanabe