|
|
Boost Testing : |
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-24 11:37:02
on Sat Mar 24 2007, Nicola Musatti <Nicola.Musatti-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
> Pardon my butting in, but when hunting problems in a specific library,
> wouldn't it be simpler and faster to just run the tests for that
> library and use process_jam_log and compiler status to collect the
> results?
It would be faster and simpler to just run the tests for that library
and look at the jam log. process_jam_log leaves out important
information when a "run" test fails, and doesn't add anything useful
for the person trying to analyze a problem.
> On Windows I go to the library's test directory and just run the
> attached batch files; I'd expect these tools to work in the same way
> on other platforms too.
>
> If the tester and the developer manage to agree to work on a problem
> for an hour or two, they could test corrections almost in real time,
> with a dramatically reduced turnaround time.
I've gotten the impression that Martin doesn't feel comfortable
dealing with bjam directly, but it would be great if I was wrong.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com