On Wednesday 01 December 2004 16:45 CET I wrote:
>[...]
> > It would be fantastic to make tests easier to write. Faster would be
> > nice, but only via improving the test code, not worrying about options
> > IMO, we start and stop spamd more often than needed.
>
> Most people should run find with the default set of options, the most
> used one will probably be "+all". The default user will just skip that
> load of in-depth long-running Unit tests I hope we will have one day :)
Oh, forgot my second, more important paragraph: The spamd-start-stop
overhead is indeed bad and I tried to find a solution for that. But:
1. It has to work also if only single tests are run, so can't rely on a
99_stop_spamd.t to clean up.
2. It would change the test semantics. Currently each test is run on a
clean spamd. If the spamd was persistent, a test could fail because of
some bug hidden somewhere else. Not that finding ng these bugs was a bad
thing but it would make the tests a bit non-deterministic.
Cheers,
Malte
--
[SGT] Simon G. Tatham: "How to Report Bugs Effectively"
<http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html>
[ESR] Eric S. Raymond: "How To Ask Questions The Smart Way"
<http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>
