|
|
Boost Testing : |
Subject: Re: [Boost-testing] A modest proposal
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-01-03 23:09:44
Rene Rivera-2 wrote
> On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 11:36 PM, Robert Ramey <
> ramey@
> > wrote:
>
>> Some change in spirit/class or boost.move has rippled through to generate
>> a
>> huge number of test failures in the serialization library on the develop
>> branch. OK that is what the develop branch is for. But it would be much
>> better if the test script were enhanced to use the following (pseudo
>> code)
>> procedure
>>
>> for each library
>> set branch to master
>>
>> for each library x
>> set branch to develop
>> run tests on library x
>> set branch back to master
>>
>
> I know, you know, that doing this is something I also want. But.. It's
> actually hard to accomplish at the moment, although not impossible.
> Switching branches for every library it's against how the build and test
> systems work. It would mean calling N different build invocations (N ==
> libraries).
But wouldn't each build/test be ~1/N the size of the current one?
When I test on my own machine, I run boost build from inside my
libs/serialization/test directory
and it builds just what is needed for the serialization library tests. In
particular, i builds system and filesystem libraries in order to run the
tests. Since the file system and system libraries are checked out
on the master, that's where they get built. Which seems fine to me. I
another library were tested later, the most recent builds would be re-used.
So it seems to me that the total amount of compiling, linking and testing
going on would be the same as the current system.
In other words, isn't testing each library individually with it's own
instance of bjam more or less the same as running bjam from the top of the
tree? So would the times be comparable?
Robert Ramey
-- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/A-modest-proposal-tp4670541p4670574.html Sent from the Boost - Testing mailing list archive at Nabble.com.