Eric Kow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 16:46:52 +1100, Trent W. Buck wrote: >> twb> Why are tests done in reverse order by default? >> twb> Because without that requirement, >> twb> >> twb> printf %s\\n | sort -r | xarg $(SHELL_HARNESS) >> twb> twb> reduces to twb> twb> $(SHELL_HARNESS) *.sh > > No good reason that I can think of. > > We need the tests to be sorted though (for ease of use), but it seems > like the sorting should be done in tests/shell_harness.
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. 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. 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. I also wondered why if it might be worth simply generating a makefile that can run each test independently, because make does set -ev by default, also supports simple multiplexing with -jN and can aggregate target failures using -k (which is basically what shell_harness does, except it aggregates them). > Care to look into it? The patch bundle I've submitted just now strips out explicit sorting in addition to all the other stuff. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
