On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Simon Wilkinson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 9 Apr 2012, at 15:03, Jason Edgecombe wrote: > >> hi everyone, >> >> I'm thinking of adding a "make check" step to the non-windows build slaves. >> >> Is this a good idea? Bad idea? Comments? > > > Theoretically, it is a great idea. There are a couple of potential problems, > though. > > *) Ideally, make check would do a complete test of all of the functionality > in OpenAFS. Obviously we are a very long way away from that, but each test > that we add will slow down the "make check" process. I have worked on large > projects where the test suite takes much, much longer to execute than the > build process, so this is a consideration for our slower builders. > > *) I'm not sure that all of our tests fail cleanly. There may be some tests > that fail by hanging, or some failure modes that leave daemons running. > Dealing with these will add to the administration overhead of the build farm. > > I think I'd prefer, at the moment, that we had a single builder doing a make > check, rather than having every builder execute them. > > Cheers,
Another option is to have multiple 'check' targets, eg., 'make check:build' suitable for buildbots, 'make check:comprehensive' for a more comprehensive, but slower, test suite. Steven _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
