|
|
Boost Testing : |
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-02 08:03:39
on Sun Apr 01 2007, Thomas Witt <witt-AT-acm.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> on Fri Mar 30 2007, Martin Wille <mw8329-AT-yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> David Abrahams wrote:
>>>> on Thu Mar 29 2007, Martin Wille <mw8329-AT-yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> IF all developers tell the testers about removed or renamed tests AND IF
>>>>> the incremental testers then remove the old results then that doesn't
>>>>> happen.
>>>>>
>>>>> We could discuss adding formal support for that communication to
>>>>> Boost.Build. However, I currently see this problem as behaviour-related
>>>>> or knowledge-related, not as tool-related.
>>>> If the reporting tools aren't removing the tests from the tables, they
>>>> should be, and it's a tool issue... but I don't think the answer is to
>>>> ban incremental testing.
>>>
>>> IMHO, fighting against invalid data is better to do early in a tool
>>> chain.
>
> I am willing to accept the argument that non-incremental testing is
> simply not viable for performance reasons.
>
> That being said unless you guys volunteer to fix the tools I am in
> strong disagreement with everything else that was said.
Who's this "you guys," monsieur? I want to be a part of the "making
the tools better" solution team. How about you?
> It is true that in theory what we have works IF everybody does the
> right thing, but that's beside the point. My point is whether it
> works in practice and I do believe that there is ample evidence that
> it does not. If every removed test requires several emails going
> back and forth, people getting LOUD and days of turnaround time then
> to me there is something wrong.
But as I said, that doesn't seem to have anything to do with
incremental testing, since the other incremental testers don't have
this problem.
> As it is the system is too brittle.
That's not news :)
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com Don't Miss BoostCon 2007! ==> http://www.boostcon.com