Re: Running unit test by make
On 12.11.2017 21:03, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 07:00:33PM +0100, Zolnai Tamás wrote: >> Independently from the actual question, which is still unanswered, > > If the question is "why do we have this status quo?" the answer is "because it > is result of some dozen discussions between developers (mostly on the ESC).". > ~Every argument has already been made and I assume most are also preserved for > eternity in the ESC minutes. >> it's always a pleasure to see how "old" developers - living in a symbiosis >> with the code - are worrying about the status quo. > > If you assume the status quo to be my personal best preference, I can assure > you > that is not the case. If you would dig through the six years of debate on ESC, > you will even find that I was supporting tests to only be run on "make check" > (to be consistent with autotools). That was not going to be due to this thing > called "compromise". see also the most recent attempt to consolidate this: https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/#/c/31075/ https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/#/c/31081/ sadly failed because the "make check" took measurably longer... -- DDJ: You've mentioned Edsger Dijkstra. What do you think of his work? DK: His great strength is that he is uncompromising. It would make him physically ill to think of programming in C++. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: Running unit test by make
Hi Bjoern, OK, thanks for the info. Not a real problem. I have a headache mostly because of the sd module, but now sd tests are moved to slowcheck, so something improved here at least. I guess if this fast tests (run by "make") are not usefull in general, in long term they will be moved all to slowcheck anyway. Best Regards, Tamás 2017-11-12 21:03 GMT+01:00 Bjoern Michaelsen < bjoern.michael...@libreoffice.org>: > Hi, > > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 07:00:33PM +0100, Zolnai Tamás wrote: > > Independently from the actual question, which is still unanswered, > > If the question is "why do we have this status quo?" the answer is > "because it > is result of some dozen discussions between developers (mostly on the > ESC).". > ~Every argument has already been made and I assume most are also preserved > for > eternity in the ESC minutes. > > > it's always a pleasure to see how "old" developers - living in a > symbiosis > > with the code - are worrying about the status quo. > > If you assume the status quo to be my personal best preference, I can > assure you > that is not the case. If you would dig through the six years of debate on > ESC, > you will even find that I was supporting tests to only be run on "make > check" > (to be consistent with autotools). That was not going to be due to this > thing > called "compromise". > > Im just warning that this is a bikeshedding topic that we already had an > expensive compromise on -- and reopening this will at best require updating > lots of docs and will at worst open yet another longwinded discussion -- > for little gain. > > Best, > > Bjoern > ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: Running unit test by make
Hi, On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 07:00:33PM +0100, Zolnai Tamás wrote: > Independently from the actual question, which is still unanswered, If the question is "why do we have this status quo?" the answer is "because it is result of some dozen discussions between developers (mostly on the ESC).". ~Every argument has already been made and I assume most are also preserved for eternity in the ESC minutes. > it's always a pleasure to see how "old" developers - living in a symbiosis > with the code - are worrying about the status quo. If you assume the status quo to be my personal best preference, I can assure you that is not the case. If you would dig through the six years of debate on ESC, you will even find that I was supporting tests to only be run on "make check" (to be consistent with autotools). That was not going to be due to this thing called "compromise". Im just warning that this is a bikeshedding topic that we already had an expensive compromise on -- and reopening this will at best require updating lots of docs and will at worst open yet another longwinded discussion -- for little gain. Best, Bjoern ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: Running unit test by make
Oh, I just see that in sw module all tests are moved to slowcheck. I guess somebody already have this issue. So I do the same for sd model which has more and more tests nowdays.: https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/#/c/44656/ 2017-11-12 19:00 GMT+01:00 Zolnai Tamás : > Independently from the actual question, which is still unanswered, it's > always a pleasure to see how "old" developers - living in a symbiosis with > the code - are worrying about the status quo. > > 2017-11-12 18:39 GMT+01:00 Zolnai Tamás : > >> >> As others have pointed out, the targets you are looking for are available. If you dont like how they are named, please just create yourself some function or alias in your local ~/.bashrc, but do not force this on the rest of the world[1]. >>> >> Anyway adding an optional configure option does not mean forcing anybody >> to do anything. >> It was just the idea of an other quasi hidden option (as there are a lots >> of mostly unknown configure options), but as I said I can solve it my local >> machine. >> I was just interested in what is the reason of running random tests by >> plain make. >> >> Best Regards, >> Tamás >> >> > ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: Running unit test by make
Independently from the actual question, which is still unanswered, it's always a pleasure to see how "old" developers - living in a symbiosis with the code - are worrying about the status quo. 2017-11-12 18:39 GMT+01:00 Zolnai Tamás : > > As others have pointed out, the targets you are looking for are available. >>> If >>> you dont like how they are named, please just create yourself some >>> function or >>> alias in your local ~/.bashrc, but do not force this on the rest of the >>> world[1]. >>> >> > Anyway adding an optional configure option does not mean forcing anybody > to do anything. > It was just the idea of an other quasi hidden option (as there are a lots > of mostly unknown configure options), but as I said I can solve it my local > machine. > I was just interested in what is the reason of running random tests by > plain make. > > Best Regards, > Tamás > > ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: Running unit test by make
> As others have pointed out, the targets you are looking for are available. >> If >> you dont like how they are named, please just create yourself some >> function or >> alias in your local ~/.bashrc, but do not force this on the rest of the >> world[1]. >> > Anyway adding an optional configure option does not mean forcing anybody to do anything. It was just the idea of an other quasi hidden option (as there are a lots of mostly unknown configure options), but as I said I can solve it my local machine. I was just interested in what is the reason of running random tests by plain make. Best Regards, Tamás ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: Running unit test by make
When I said I'll solve it locally, I mean I'll solve it on my machine only. 2017-11-12 18:29 GMT+01:00 Bjoern Michaelsen < bjoern.michael...@libreoffice.org>: > Hi, > > On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 09:40:41PM +0100, Zolnai Tamás wrote: > > I meant a configure option what you can add to autogen.input and so you > > don't need to type make .build or make build-nocheck, but use the > > simple "make" for building and make check for run a build with tests, but > > never mind I solve it locally. > > Please dont. There have been endless bikeshed on which target do what and > everytime you change something there will be another (unproductive) one. > And it > will take at least 6 month until all the documentation and wikipages on the > build are again reflecting the status quo. > > Furthermore, this isnt about configuration, but about build targets -- so > it > doesnt belong to autoconf (which already does way to many things anyway). > > As others have pointed out, the targets you are looking for are available. > If > you dont like how they are named, please just create yourself some > function or > alias in your local ~/.bashrc, but do not force this on the rest of the > world[1]. > > Best, > > Bjoern > > [1] The _only_ reason to change the meaning of common targets at all is to > move them > towards the most widely accepted expectations. And that would be to > resemble: > http://airs.com/ian/configure/ > as closly as possible. OTOH, better fitting someones personal taste is > NOT a > good reason for change. > And even in the case of moving towards what autotools would do, the > main > task is hunting down and updating all preexisting LibreOffice build > documentation in wikis, askbot, repos and articles and adapt that. > Without the latter, such a change would STILL be a net negative. > ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: Running unit test by make
Hi, On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 09:40:41PM +0100, Zolnai Tamás wrote: > I meant a configure option what you can add to autogen.input and so you > don't need to type make .build or make build-nocheck, but use the > simple "make" for building and make check for run a build with tests, but > never mind I solve it locally. Please dont. There have been endless bikeshed on which target do what and everytime you change something there will be another (unproductive) one. And it will take at least 6 month until all the documentation and wikipages on the build are again reflecting the status quo. Furthermore, this isnt about configuration, but about build targets -- so it doesnt belong to autoconf (which already does way to many things anyway). As others have pointed out, the targets you are looking for are available. If you dont like how they are named, please just create yourself some function or alias in your local ~/.bashrc, but do not force this on the rest of the world[1]. Best, Bjoern [1] The _only_ reason to change the meaning of common targets at all is to move them towards the most widely accepted expectations. And that would be to resemble: http://airs.com/ian/configure/ as closly as possible. OTOH, better fitting someones personal taste is NOT a good reason for change. And even in the case of moving towards what autotools would do, the main task is hunting down and updating all preexisting LibreOffice build documentation in wikis, askbot, repos and articles and adapt that. Without the latter, such a change would STILL be a net negative. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: Running unit test by make
I meant a configure option what you can add to autogen.input and so you don't need to type make .build or make build-nocheck, but use the simple "make" for building and make check for run a build with tests, but never mind I solve it locally. 2017-11-11 20:59 GMT+01:00 Jaskaran Singh : > Its actually make build-nocheck > > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 1:16 AM, Noel Grandin > wrote: > >> make build.nocheck >> >> ___ >> LibreOffice mailing list >> LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org >> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice >> >> > ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: Running unit test by make
Its actually make build-nocheck On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 1:16 AM, Noel Grandin wrote: > make build.nocheck > > ___ > LibreOffice mailing list > LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice > > ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: Running unit test by make
make build.nocheck ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: Running unit test by make
Anyway, I guess it's OK if I add a config option which avoids running unit tests by simple make. It does not make too much sense to me to run only some of the tests on a module or on the full source. These tests are different only in the run time, so I can't imagine when it's usefull to run only the fast tests. Best Regards, Tamás 2017-11-10 9:33 GMT+01:00 Miklos Vajna : > Hi, > > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 08:03:18AM +0100, Zolnai Tamás < > zolnaitamas2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > make .build > > > > Great, but then what is simple make for? > > Similar to plain 'make' (which runs a subset of all tests: unit and > slowchecks, but not subsequentchecks), 'make ' also runs only a > subset of tests (unitchecks, but not slowchecks or subsequentchecks). > > (Yes, this just describes the situation, I don't know the reasoning > behind this behavior.) > > Regards, > > Miklos > > ___ > LibreOffice mailing list > LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice > > ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: Running unit test by make
Hi, On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 08:03:18AM +0100, Zolnai Tamás wrote: > > make .build > > Great, but then what is simple make for? Similar to plain 'make' (which runs a subset of all tests: unit and slowchecks, but not subsequentchecks), 'make ' also runs only a subset of tests (unitchecks, but not slowchecks or subsequentchecks). (Yes, this just describes the situation, I don't know the reasoning behind this behavior.) Regards, Miklos signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: Running unit test by make
2017-11-10 7:44 GMT+01:00 Noel Grandin : > if you don't want to run the tests you can do > > make .build > > Great, but then what is simple make for? ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: Running unit test by make
if you don't want to run the tests you can do make .build ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Running unit test by make
Hi all, I wonder what the reason of running some of the unit tests by calling simple make on a module (e.g. make sd). I used to use simple make while doing the intensive hacking of the code, when I don't need to run unit tests at all. After I finished with the codewriting, I can run the unit tests with make check or a top level make. I guess there is some additional option with which I can avoid unit tests, but I would not waste my time with typing. So I wonder whether there is any good reason for having this unit tests run by make. Why don't we run tests only by make check? Nowdays most of the patches are pushed via gerrit, so we don't need to worry about that the commiter don't run the unit tests before pushing to the branch. So I think it might be good to remove this type of unit tests and run these tests as slow check targets. At least a config option would be usefull, which can do that. Any thoughts about this? Best Regards, Tamás ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
