+1
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Noah Slater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 >
