Do you mean that for a single test that verifies 10 lines of code working on very specific configuration I have to create a parallel test tree?
What about tests that work in two different exotic configurations? Should we duplicate them? Thanks, Mikhail On 1/26/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > one solution is to simply group the "exotic" tests separately from the > main tests, so they can be run optionally when you are in that exotic > configuration. > > You can do this in several ways, including a naming convention, or > another parallel code tree of the tests... > > I like the latter, as it makes it easier to "see" > > geir > > > Mikhail Loenko wrote: > > Well let's start a new thread as this is more general problem. > > > > So if we have some code designed for some exotic configurations > > and we have tests that verify that exotic code. > > > > The test when run in usual configuration (not exotic one) should > > report something that would not scare people. But if one > > wants to test that specific exotic configuration that he should be > > able to easily verify that he successfully made required conf and > > the test worked well. > > > > The following options I see here: > > 1) introduce a new test status (like skipped) to mark those tests that > > did not actually run > > 2) agree on exact wording that the skipped tests would print to allow > > grep logs later > > 3) introduce tests-indicators that would fail when current > > configuration disallow > > running certain tests > > > > Please let me know what you think > > > > Thanks, > > Mikhail Loenko > > Intel Middleware Products Division > > > > >
