hi all
I've been thinking about this situation for a while now...
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: FAIL Apache-Test-1.06 darwin 6.8 Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 01:03:19 +0200 (IST)
!!! no test server configured, please specify an httpd or apxs or put either in your PATH. For example:
t/TEST -httpd /path/to/bin/httpd
+-----------------------------------------------------+
| To report problems please refer to the SUPPORT file |
+-----------------------------------------------------+
make: *** [run_tests] Error 1
obviously, the tests are not failing - the test suite is only partially (and thus improperly) configured. so, it bothers me somewhat that 'make test' reports back a failure when the package didn't fail, it merely failed to run the test suite.
in some work I've been doing lately, I go to great lengths to skip Apache-Test setup if there are no -apxs, -httpd, or proper %ENV settings when the Makefile is generated, which is particularly important if Apache-Test is only relevant for a small portion of the tests.
so, I'm considering changing the situation to have 'make test' return true if (and only if) no apache server can be located. configuration problems, etc, will still mean failure.
yes, I know that
$ make && make test && sudo make install
will still install the package, even though the tests didn't run, I'm just not convinced that is wrong here - it's not a test failure if the tests can't run, and we often "pass" tests when we don't have the proper environment (plan skip_all => have_module('foo')). this is just an extension of the same idea.
I would appreciate it if everyone listening could weigh in on this issue (so it's not just a debate between two people who probably already don't agree :) I wouldn't be terribly upset if it stayed as it is currently, but my position on what tests should be is shifting and I'm more and more convinced that this approach is the one to take.
so (constructive) feedback welcome.
--Geoff
