On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 01:18:44PM -0800, Chris Anderson wrote:
> I tend to agree with you. `make check` should be running some other unit
> tests. For instance, if we had a test suite for the view server, that could go
> here, as well as Jan's config tests, and hopefully a whole suite of unit tests
> eventually.
Yes, lets remember some of the contexts that "make check" is run, such as
automatic packaging scripts, GNU/Linux nightly build hosts, &c.
Simple is better, we can't be spawning random network services.
> The thing about this test client is that it should take a couchdb host
> URL as an argument anyway. This makes it more broadly useful, for
> instance via shell scripts to check the health of a cluster.
How about this as a sample work-flow:
$ make check
Starting CouchDB unit tests...
...
CouchDB does not run its functional tests from the `check` target.
To run the functional tests, run this command from the root source directory:
./utils/test URI
Using the URI of your running CouchDB server.
$ ./utils/test URI
Starting CouchDB functional tests...
Best,
--
Noah Slater, http://bytesexual.org/nslater
