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

Subject: Re: [Boost-build] Idiom for running tests using (non-test) target?
From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-12 03:46:04

On Sunday 26 October 2008 21:17:51 Mat Marcus wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 4:46 AM, Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > On Sunday 26 October 2008 00:20:17 Steven Watanabe wrote:
> >> AMDG
> >>
> >> Mat Marcus wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >> > 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
> >
> > This is probably how it should have being in the first place. The
> > --preserve-test-target is option, and not a property, only for compatibility
> > with V1.
> >
> > But I'm not really sure if the default behaviour should be to remove test targets.
> > For Boost testing, the scripts can very well pass the right option, and in general,
> > test program are not likely to use very much space -- since shared linking is default
> > in Boost.Build, and since object files are not being removed. Should we just flip the
> > default?
> 
> Thanks for working on this. I'd love to see some kind of solution in
> 1.37.0 :-). Flipping the default sounds like it could do the trick.
> 
> In general, though, I would like to see a property corresponding to
> each option. Have you ever considered this? This way I could set
> "defaults" for my boost dependent, boost-build-built libraries, so
> that my clients can issue the simplest possible bjam command line. For
> the case of a preserve-test-targets property, some but not all of my
> tests targets are useful outside of the build process. I could imagine
> choosing to set the preserve property by default for my useful targets
> but not others. In the past I've wished for option-as-feature for
> things options such as --without-python, etc. to reduce warning noise
> and to speed up build times (by eliminating the python invocation).

I've checked in a patch to remove --preserve-test-targets option, and
add preserve-test-targets feature -- that you can force to "on" in your
Jamroot.

I'll flip the default a bit later.

- Volodya