On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Eli Barzilay <[email protected]> wrote: > Yesterday, Robby Findler wrote: >> This has caused me some trouble and I'm not sure it is a good way to >> go, in general. Specifically, I'd like to think that our newer tests >> will more and more be things we'd want to compile. >> >> My desire to compile the tests is the same reason I want to compile >> any Racket file: so it loads faster. > > (To be clear, you're not talking about any other benefits besides > being able to run your tests faster, right? Since drdr (or the > nightly build, for those tests) will still run them and report.)
I find it valuable to work with compiled racket files when I build racket software, tests or not. The drracket tests, in particular, have non-trivial libraries that go with them, more than just a sequences of inputs and outputs. > This sounds like a very minor damage: it's only you who wants to run > your tests, and even that happens only when you're testing... It > seems that the benefit is also a minor improvement in tree setup > speed, but that one is done much more frequently, and by much more > people, so we get: minor ⋘ minor * much². Even more: I think that in > all cases that I ran test code, it happens while I'm editing the code > that is tested and/or the tests -- so I don't even get that small > benefit in my workflow. I thought you said that disabling the eopl tests gets most of that benefit. Assuming that was right, I would prefer to do that (this is what I was trying to say in my previous message). > In any case, I have no principle objection here... For the nightly > build (and for my own builds), I can easily just hack it to add the > `compile-omit-paths' definition before it builds the tree -- but given > the above, I think that most people would prefer to enjoy the shorter > build times. (Kind of obvious when most people don't run these tests > on a regular basis.) If not, I'll do that hack. > > Alternatively, add a flag to setup that is similar to `-D' to omit > compiling tests (and have it on by default). > > >> So, I'd like to go back to the old way: I can try disabling eopl >> tests and look at any other problematic collections if that would >> help with your original concern in a different way. > > [The problem with that approach is that new collections are being > added when nobody's looking, and having no global `compile-omit-paths' > means that they get compiled by default. So I'd rather go with the > above hack than go back to selective exclusions.] I'm fine with the nightly-build-based hack, but would prefer not to go with a new "-D"-like flag -- not sure which of those you're referring to here. Robby _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
