Re: [Evolution-hackers] nightly builds of Evolution +testing withSyncEvolution

2008-02-25 Thread Patrick Ohly
On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 09:44 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
 On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 19:55 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
  I can run make check after a build. Are all tests going to be run by
  that?
 I doubt, if that is kept updated to source.

Then how do I run the existing tests instead?

-- 
Bye, Patrick Ohly
--  
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.estamos.de/

___
Evolution-hackers mailing list
Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers


Re: [Evolution-hackers] nightly builds of Evolution +testing withSyncEvolution

2008-02-12 Thread Srinivasa Ragavan

On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 19:55 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
 On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 15:32 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
  On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 12:18 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
   I wonder whether this regular building and testing is of interest to
   anybody else? The build script sends out a short summary email which
   links to full logs for each night; I could easily add other recipients.
   For the Evolution build these include the changes since the last build.
   
  I think it may prove very helpful in the long run, where some commits
  cause some side effects, which we may not easily identify in normal
  cases. But the test script gotto be foolproof to make this really
  useful.
 
 They have worked fine so far. I'll see how it'll go in the future.
 
   Are there other tests of the EDS API which I should run? If Novel
   already does regular testing this probably isn't needed.
  AFAIK, we don't have much automated tests except the tests under the
  respective folders. Akhil, correct me if I'm wrong. Patrick, if your
  test script could cover some cases from those test files also, it will
  be really useful.
 
 I can run make check after a build. Are all tests going to be run by
 that?
I doubt, if that is kept updated to source.

-Srini.
___
Evolution-hackers mailing list
Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers


Re: [Evolution-hackers] nightly builds of Evolution + testing withSyncEvolution

2008-02-12 Thread Patrick Ohly
On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 15:32 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
 On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 12:18 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
  I wonder whether this regular building and testing is of interest to
  anybody else? The build script sends out a short summary email which
  links to full logs for each night; I could easily add other recipients.
  For the Evolution build these include the changes since the last build.
  
 I think it may prove very helpful in the long run, where some commits
 cause some side effects, which we may not easily identify in normal
 cases. But the test script gotto be foolproof to make this really
 useful.

They have worked fine so far. I'll see how it'll go in the future.

  Are there other tests of the EDS API which I should run? If Novel
  already does regular testing this probably isn't needed.
 AFAIK, we don't have much automated tests except the tests under the
 respective folders. Akhil, correct me if I'm wrong. Patrick, if your
 test script could cover some cases from those test files also, it will
 be really useful.

I can run make check after a build. Are all tests going to be run by
that?

How do I detect failures? I just tried it on evolution-data-server and
got e.g.:
[...]
Failed 48/662 tests, 92% okay

Failed tests:
  
  2/23 2/24 2/26 2/27 2/28 2/29 2/32 2/47 2/48 2/50 2/51
2/52 2/53 2/56 2/71 2/72 2/74 2/75 2/76 2/77 2/80 2/95 2/96 2/98
2/99 2/100 2/101 2/104 2/119 2/120 2/122 2/123 2/124 2/125 
  10/295 10/325 
  14/344 14/345 14/346 
  15/347 15/349 15/350 15/351 
  27/486 
  31/503 
  32/505 
  39/599 39/600 
PASS: regression
==
All 1 tests passed
==
make[5]: Leaving directory

`/tmp/runtests/head/tmp/evolutiontrunk-build/evolution-data-server/calendar/libical/src/test'

The make check at top level returned no error code. Looking at
calendar/libical/src/test/regression.c I see that it always returns 0,
so I guess I have to scan the log output to find failures, right?

Are the failures above something that should be reported? To make
regular testing useful failing tests either have to be skipped or fixed
in a timely fashion.

-- 
Bye, Patrick Ohly
--  
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.estamos.de/

___
Evolution-hackers mailing list
Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers


Re: [Evolution-hackers] nightly builds of Evolution + testing withSyncEvolution

2008-02-11 Thread Srinivasa Ragavan
Hey Patrick,

On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 12:18 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
 Hello,
 
 I finally got all pieces together (in particular most of the recent
 GNOME libs which are missing in Debian Etch), so now I'm building
 Evolution trunk each night using Paul Smith's most excellent Makefile
 [1].
 
Cool.

 After each build I then run SyncEvolution tests against the EDS API.
 These tests cover the synchronous libebook (contacts) and libecal
 (calendar, todos, memos). My primary motivation is to catch changes
 affecting SyncEvolution before the release, not after it ;-}
Sounds really nice to me.
 
 I wonder whether this regular building and testing is of interest to
 anybody else? The build script sends out a short summary email which
 links to full logs for each night; I could easily add other recipients.
 For the Evolution build these include the changes since the last build.
 
I think it may prove very helpful in the long run, where some commits
cause some side effects, which we may not easily identify in normal
cases. But the test script gotto be foolproof to make this really
useful.

 I'll probably won't be able to check the logs each day, but if I do and
 find build problems, how should I report them? As entry in the GNOME
 Bugzilla or an email to this list?
Feel free to file bugs on it.
 
 Are there other tests of the EDS API which I should run? If Novel
 already does regular testing this probably isn't needed.
AFAIK, we don't have much automated tests except the tests under the
respective folders. Akhil, correct me if I'm wrong. Patrick, if your
test script could cover some cases from those test files also, it will
be really useful.
 
 [1] http://mad-scientist.us/evolution.html

This is a very nice initiative IMO. Thanks for the trigger.

-Srini.

___
Evolution-hackers mailing list
Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers