Boost logo

Boost Testing :

From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-17 10:16:11

Martin Wille writes:
> Robert raises an interesting point. I also thought it would be
> nice to have an environment that would allow for test results to
> be published incrementally.

Same here, actually.

> This would yield several advantages:
> 1. Partial results are available earlier
> 2. Tests can be run in parallel on similarly set up boxes without
> having to use different runner-ids.
> 3. Bogus results can be replaced without having to rebuild all
> the results for the entire set of toolsets.
> 4. Several smaller advantages, e.g.: being able to interleave
> uploads with running the tests, having more points at which
> testing can be interrupted without having to rerun anything.

Yep, all of these are very attractive.

> Such an environment would consist of two result sets per runner
> id. One set is considered "final" while the other is considered
> "being built". Results would be uploaded per toolset into the
> "being built" set. Eventually, that set would be committed
> resulting in a new "final" set and a new, empty "being built"
> set would be created.

Hmm, does this scheme imply having two sets of reports as well?
Otherwise I don't see how it's more incremental than the current one.

> I think this environment can be built without changing anything
> in Boost.Build.

I'm pretty sure something along these line can be.

Aleksey Gurtovoy
MetaCommunications Engineering

Boost-testing list run by mbergal at