UVR wrote: <snip>
> Can't say I disagree with your position, having advocated it myself in > the past. However, thus far there has been a lack of interest amongst > CTI-TET users to use checkenv (or to RFE that CTI should use checkenv). > Please feel free to submit one: stc/cti/tet. RFE 6818022 filed. > At present, most CTI-TET test suites just do the checks they need sans > checkenv. It works mainly because the tests currently being performed > are simple and trivial ones like > [[ -x some_binary ]] && do_something > If the checks you need are also of this type, you may want to choose a > similar approach. This is not to say you shouldn't file the RFE though. That's what I am doing but find it sub-optimal even for the minimalistic nc test suite. I guess most of the authors of CTI-TET based test suites realized that checkenv cannot easily used and reverted to their own solutions when developing. IMHO, a test suite framework should offer the capability of checking the environment before the configure and execute phases (in robust way) to offer a standard which can be adhered. For CTI-TET it should be sufficient just to stick a checkenv_def file to the top level directory of given test suite and the framework will do the rest. v.
