Hi Thorsten, Would you consider a PR that updated the failing tests with code to check for the required programmes?
We could then output a failure message that informed the user why the test does not work. On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 8:57 PM Thorsten Schöning <tschoen...@am-soft.de> wrote: > Guten Tag Robert Middleton, > am Donnerstag, 16. Juli 2020 um 14:54 schrieben Sie: > > > So perhaps the best solution is based a little bit off of Stephen's > > earlier PR(#18[1]), but instead of compiling out the code that depends > > on gzip we make the test more granular(one test for rolling zip, one > > test for rolling gz, etc) and disable[2] the test if the appropriate > > executable is not found. > > And the same with missing Java? And then you will run those tests and > tell people everything is OK? But it's too much work for you to > provide the necessary binaries in your Windows? OTOH, you don't want > to simply trust e.g. me running all Windows-tests as well and want to > run at least some of those, but not all yourself? And because they are > no docs which tests are ever executed when, those disabled in case of > a missing binary will never be executed by anone anymore? So why not > simply delete them? > > And what's with the Linux-test that fails in my environment for some > reason? Delete as wlel right away or disable first because it's not > working in my environment or what is so different to the Windows tests > not working in your environment? > > I still don't see much benefit of this approach. > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen, > > Thorsten Schöning > > -- > Thorsten Schöning E-Mail: thorsten.schoen...@am-soft.de > AM-SoFT IT-Systeme http://www.AM-SoFT.de/ > > Telefon...........05151- 9468- 55 > Fax...............05151- 9468- 88 > Mobil..............0178-8 9468- 04 > > AM-SoFT GmbH IT-Systeme, Brandenburger Str. 7c, 31789 Hameln > AG Hannover HRB 207 694 - Geschäftsführer: Andreas Muchow > >
