Bernhard Voelker wrote: > On 08/24/2011 11:42 AM, Jim Meyering wrote: >> Bernhard Voelker wrote: >> >>> On 08/24/2011 10:49 AM, Jim Meyering wrote: >>>> Voelker, Bernhard wrote: >>>>> BTW: Wouldn't this test deserve a proper make target, e.g. >>>>> "make check-expensive"? >>>> >>>> Yes, good idea. >>>> That would make it easier to run just those test. >>>> >>>> However, hard-coding the list of expensive and very-expensive >>>> tests would require doing the same sort of thing as is done >>>> for root_tests (see check-root) in tests/Makefile.am, >>>> where there'd be a hand-maintained list of expensive and very-expensive >>>> tests (in tests/Makefile.am) as well as rules to run them and rules >>>> to cross-check that the lists are complete, as is done in cfg.mk's >>>> sc-root_tests rule. >>> >>> Wouldn't it be sufficient to add something like the following >>> to the top-level Makefile.am? >>> >>> check-expensive: >>> env RUN_EXPENSIVE_TESTS=yes make check >>> >>> check-very-expensive: >>> env RUN_VERY_EXPENSIVE_TESTS=yes make check >> >> That would be sufficient if you don't mind running all of >> the other tests, too. Does a name like "check-expensive", >> imply "all regular tests, plus the expensive ones"? >> Would you expect "check-very-expensive" also to run the >> "merely expensive" tests? From what I recall, you'd have >> to set RUN_EXPENSIVE_TESTS=yes, too, if you want that. > > Actually, such a shortcut would do the same as calling > "env RUN_EXPENSIVE_TESTS=yes make check" today. So yes, > I'd expect the cheaper ones also to be run.
If you would find some testing-related make shortcut to be useful, please propose a patch, preferably without modifying all tests ;-) > If this is not wanted, i.e. only the expensive tests should > be run for the target check-expensive, then I don't like the > idea to have another list. I'd rather let each test decide > for itself, either calling very_expensive_, expensive_, or > a new function not_expensive_ which would exit if none of > RUN_EXPENSIVE_TESTS and RUN_EXPENSIVE_TESTS are 'yes'. > > This'd mean to have to touch all tests ...
