Dave, Agreed, modulo one comment: I’d like the folder to be named something more specific than “extras/apps”. We can keep that for genuine application, but for any apps meant for testing, I’d go with “extras/apps/testing” or something along those lines.
Cheers, Florin > On Aug 23, 2017, at 2:21 PM, Dave Wallace <dwallac...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Jon, > > On 08/23/2017 03:41 PM, Jon Loeliger wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Dave Wallace <dwallac...@gmail.com> >> <mailto:dwallac...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Jon, >>> >>> I think this is an excellent idea as your example is clearly a test escape >>> that we should be detecting in our CI infra. >>> >>> However, I'm not sure if "make test" is the appropriate place to add this >>> check. IMHO, this would be better suited to be invoked under "make verify" >>> (like the clang test coverage). I recommend that code itself live in >>> .../vpp/src/apps >> This is the problem. All the existing code is "in tree". That always works. >> >> I want something that is building based on out-of-tree (ie, RPM install >> directory), like the 'make test' provides. > IMO, "in-tree" .vs. "out-of-tree" really boils down to decoupling the app's > "Makefile.am" the rest of the vpp autotools structure/configuration. For > example, I ran into the same issue with > .../vppsb/vcl-ldpreload/src/Makefile.am (which is literally 'out-of-tree') in > the case where "VPP_DIR" is specified. However, the vcl-ldpreload build > would work the same if it was moved somewhere under vpp without integrating > it into .../vpp/src/Makefile.am -- thus it would equally be "out-of-tree" > even though it was stored in the vpp repo. >>> There are some other test apps in .../vpp/src/uri, which could be migrated >>> there as well if we want to consolidate all apps under one directory. >>> Personally I think this makes sense. >> Are these already being built from 'install' staging directories? > Currently these are "noinst_PROGRAMS" in .../vpp/src/uri.am. To build them > for testing, "s/noinst_PROGRAMS/bin_PROGRAMS/g" in uri.am, then rebuild -- > which does build them 'in-tree' (i.e. using the vpp autotools > structure/configuration) --> the resulting binary executable files land in > .../vpp/build-root/install-vpp*-native/vpp/bin. > > In any case, I think that it is entirely possible to implement your proposal > in such a way as to ensure that we can close the test escape that was the > impetus for your proposal. My recommendation is to consolidate test > applications in the same location in the process, in which case I think > .../vpp/extras/apps is a better location than either .../vpp/make/test/c or > .../vpp/src/apps > > Thanks, > -daw- >> jdl > > _______________________________________________ > vpp-dev mailing list > vpp-dev@lists.fd.io > https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev
_______________________________________________ vpp-dev mailing list vpp-dev@lists.fd.io https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev
