Boost logo

Boost Testing :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-11-15 18:12:33

on Thu Nov 15 2007, Beman Dawes <> wrote:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>> We've removed the BittenToDo page and entered the things we could
>> think of to do as tickets. See
> #8, Automatic ticket creation, is questionable in my mind.
> What often happens is that there is some testing snafu that causes a
> huge number of tests to fail. I'd hate to see a tracker littered with
> tickets for each of the failed tests.

Obviously we'd have to be smarter about it. For example, if more than
10% of a library's tests are failing we should create one ticket, and
if a platform is failing (nearly) everything, we should create a
ticket for the machine owner.

> #4, Show output for failed tests, and #2, Support expected failures
> markup, are the high priority issues. I'm sure you and Daniel
> already knew that:-)

Yes. We have some strong feelings that we're not handling expected
failure markup in the best way right now, so "support" at least
initially will probably look a little different than it does now.

> I find the hand editing of the markup file tedious at best and error
> prone at worst. Just dreaming, bu I'd rather go to a web page and
> fill out a form.

I suppose you didn't read all of

> I hope that work on Bitten won't slow down work on eliminating
> process_jam_log.

Well, the fact that I have a system working that uses process_jam_log
right now makes eliminating it a lower priority item for me than some
other things that are crucial to having the system actually be useful.

> I've again wasted several hours today because
> Boost.Build doesn't generate XML files directly.

How so?

My problem is that I don't really understand what's involved in
eliminating PJL yet. Rene has referred to __ACTION_RULE__ but I don't
see how to use that facility to write any files.

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

Boost-testing list run by mbergal at