On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 14:39, Augie Fackler <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2010, at 4:32 PM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote: > > > > On Sun, 2010-12-19 at 13:57 -0800, Dave Borowitz wrote: > >> AFAIK nose is still canonical, since it's what's in the Makefile. I'm > >> fine with this provided: > >> -if no git is installed, tests are still skipped rather than failed > >> -you rewrite the 'check' make target such that it doesn't run the > >> non-compat tests twice. > > FWIW this is how trunk behaves at the moment. > > > >> A nice-to-have would be a 'check-nocompat' or similar make target. I > >> for one do things like run the tests on a bunch of sequential patches, > >> and it's nice when those take 1s each rather than 10s. > > Adding a check-nocompat target seems reasonable to me. > > As long as it's well documented how to run the tests without all the slow > ones (for exactly the reason Dave mentions) I'm not going to complain too > loudly. Yes, exactly. I should have said "such that it doesn't run the compat tests twice." I haven't complained about running the non-compat tests twice because they're so fast, but I wouldn't be too happy if the time doubled. I might take a look at testr for my own use for parallelization, too. But there's some inherent slowness in spinning up servers and whatnot such that even with good parallelization I probably wouldn't want to always run the compat tests. > > I use testr for most of my projects, it can e.g. parallelize test runs > > and re-run only the failing tests from the previous run. > > > > % time testr run --parallel > > ... > > id=59, tests=423, skips=6 > > testr run --parallel 0.64s user 0.22s system 18% cpu 4.776 total > > nose is capable of both of those features, FYI. I've never heard of testr, > and can't find it on a quick search. Can you provide a link so I can > explore? > > > Cheers, > > > > Jelmer > > > >> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 13:36, Augie Fackler <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > https://github.com/jelmer/dulwich/commit/b5490da68052e33b904e32c04f2aef140c8bcb45 > >> > >> This means that nose will no longer skip these tests by > >> default, which we had historically (as I understood things, > >> anyway) wanted. Is nose no longer the canonical way of running > >> tests? I thought we didn't want to support test runners > >> without discovery support? (I thought unittest2 supported > >> discovery...) > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Augie > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dulwich-users > >> Post to : [email protected] > >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dulwich-users > >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > >> > >> > > > > >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dulwich-users Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dulwich-users More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
