Alexandre Julliard wrote: >Jeremy White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> The normal behaviour of the tests is that they are >>oblidged to provide an 0 exit code on success; I think that >>is an excellent standard. >> However, having the diff feature allows us to more >>rapdily adapt existing programs to become tests. >>Since it's done (and it's trivial code), I don't see >>the harm in leaving in the feature. We can hide it/discourage >>in in the (as yet unwritten) doco if you like. >> > >The problem is that it's hard to support both types of tests from the >makefile, so it would force tests without output to generate dummy >output and reference files. I think it's better to make the default be >no output and have tests that need output diffs do the extra work. > Um...the way I constructed it, there is no additional effort required in the Makefile whatsoever. Now, if you get rid of my .test file, yes, then, doing this all in the Makefile is a pain in the neck.
>"Normal" Wine use should definitely include running regression >tests. I don't want to be the only one to run them. > Point taken; but I still believe that this is an issue not relevant to my proposed patch, but is a problem with using C tests as a whole. A solution to this problem will be just as appropriate with or without my patch. > >But without your .test file it's even easier to do, all you have to do >is to hack the makefile. Plus you can get the dependencies right (how >can make guess what file your .test is referencing?) > If the goal is to make it easy for a newcomer to add a test, then requiring them to hack the Makefile is going to be a barrier. Asking them to copy and cut/paste a 'samples/foo.test' file will not be. I do concede the point that my .test file hides dependencies, and a Makefile only approach can do that better. >You can do that from a Perl test too, but I don't think this should be >encouraged. Tests should not depend on external programs any more than >strictly necessary, otherwise people will soon need a complete Linux >distribution on their Windows machine to run our tests. > I threw that out as an example, not necessarily a serious case. I think the bottom line question is whether or not the test scripts should be built such that we depend on a shell script (runtest) and a configuration file for each test (foo.test), or whether we rely completely on the Makefiles to hold the test configuration information. I think either choice is valid, but let me lay down the gauntlet: replace my 'winetest/samples' directory with a Make based equivalent that allows for the same sorts of tests, and makes it similarly obvious to a newcomer how to add a new test. You are better with Make than I am; you may persuade me readily with a patch. Jer p.s. If you're just rejecting the .test files because they have long horizontal comment lines, we could negotiate that...<g>
