On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 20:45:31 +1100, Trent W. Buck wrote: > I don't agree; running the tests in a deterministic order (and more > importantly, in the same working directory) means that bugs in one > test can hide brokenness in another test.
Hmm. Good point. > When I removed the sort -r, resulting in pure lexicographic sorting > (because I use LC_COLLATE=C), I already found two bugs where scripts > assumed that temp1 didn't already exist. Note this is actually two bugs in one. Script A fails to clean up after itself (for example, maybe it does rm -rf temp1, but does it cd .. out of the its current darcs directory first?) and Script B assumes that the previous script has cleaned up after itself... Then again, do we really want this systematic cleaning up after self in the scripts? > In fact, I could make a case that randomizing the test order (sort -R) > is the best approach, because it allows us to check that there are no > implied dependency orderings. Nod. I'm a little bit nervous about not being able to understand what the test harness is doing, but let's try it! :-) -- Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow> PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
