"Malte S. Stretz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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.
Here's an optimization to greatly reduce unnecessary start/stop. After running each test, leave spamd running and store the flags and configuration that were used to run spamd. In the next test: - if the flags were changed, stop and restart spamd - else if the configuration was changed, kill -HUP spamd I think it would be good, not just for performance reasons, to reuse spamd processes when possible, because it might turn up somewhat more complex issues. Daniel -- Daniel Quinlan http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/
