Hi
On 07/05/15 19:06, stefan schmidt wrote:
>Hello.
>
>On 07/05/15 10:06, kabeer khan wrote:
>> cedric pushed a commit to branch master.
>>
>>
http://git.enlightenment.org/core/efl.git/commit/?id=35119e7bfdc7c13c2041293
f3d0b2ebe1fb7c313
>>
>> commit 35119e7bfdc7c13c2041293f3d0b2ebe1fb7c313
> >Author: kabeer khan
> >Date: Wed Apr 15 16:58:11 2015 +0200
>>
>> autotools: enable make check per individual modules.
> >
> > Currently make check runs tests of whole EFL.Enabled running
> > of tests of individual modules by make check-
> >
>
>The idea of being able to just check specific areas of code you are
>working on is nice.
>I have some problems with this implementation though. Some comments below.
>> Signed-off-by: kabeer khan
>> Signed-off-by: Cedric BAIL
>> ---
>> Makefile.am | 69
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> src/Makefile_Ecore.am | 5 +++
>> src/Makefile_Ecore_Audio_Cxx.am | 6 ++++
>> src/Makefile_Ecore_Con.am | 6 ++++
>> src/Makefile_Ecore_Cxx.am | 12 +++++++
>> src/Makefile_Ector.am | 6 ++++
>> src/Makefile_Edje.am | 6 ++++
>> src/Makefile_Edje_Cxx.am | 6 ++++
>> src/Makefile_Eet.am | 6 ++++
>> src/Makefile_Eet_Cxx.am | 7 +++++
>> src/Makefile_Eeze.am | 7 +++++
>> src/Makefile_Efreet.am | 6 ++++
>> src/Makefile_Eina.am | 6 ++++
>> src/Makefile_Eina_Cxx.am | 6 ++++
>> src/Makefile_Eio.am | 6 ++++
>> src/Makefile_Eldbus.am | 6 ++++
>> src/Makefile_Eldbus_Cxx.am | 6 ++++
>> src/Makefile_Emile.am | 6 ++++
>> src/Makefile_Eo.am | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> src/Makefile_Eolian.am | 6 ++++
>> src/Makefile_Eolian_Cxx.am | 6 ++++
>> src/Makefile_Evas.am | 6 ++++
>> src/Makefile_Evas_Cxx.am | 6 ++++
>> 23 files changed, 247 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/Makefile.am b/Makefile.am
>> index a756511..4bc6def 100644
>> --- a/Makefile.am
>> +++ b/Makefile.am
>> @@ -432,6 +432,75 @@ endif
>> if EFL_ENABLE_COVERAGE
>> @$(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) lcov-report
>> endif
>> +
>> +check: override DISABLE_SUBTESTS = 1
>> +check:
>> + ifeq($(DISABLE_SUBTESTS), 1)
>> + make check-recursive
>> + endif
>I stumbled over this when make check failed (jenkins as well as locally
>for me). After make check is done I hit this:
>
>===========================================================================
=
>Testsuite summary for efl 1.14.99.30492
>===========================================================================
=
># TOTAL: 31
># PASS: 31
># SKIP: 0
># XFAIL: 0
># FAIL: 0
># XPASS: 0
># ERROR: 0
>===========================================================================
=
>Making check in data
>make[1]: Nothing to be done for 'check'.
>Making check in doc
>Making check in previews
> CC preview_text_filter.o
> CCLD preview_text_filter
>Making check in po
>ifeq(1, 1)
>/bin/sh: -c: line 0: syntax error near unexpected token `1,'
>/bin/sh: -c: line 0: `ifeq(1, 1)'
>Makefile:2951: recipe for target 'check' failed
>make: *** [check] Error 1
>To be honest I do not understand what this tries to do. Setting
>DISABLE_SUBTESTS to 1 here will always have the condition being true, or
>not?
DISABLE_SUBTESTS is just a flag which prevents make check-recursive when
test for individual modules is run. This code is failing because rules for
make check-preview_text_filter is not defined. Yes, this is a major issue
with this approach as new rules needs to be defined for each new module.
>That means make check will be run twice. I just checked by removing the
>if condition.
>
>> +check-eina:
>> + $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) -C src check-eina
>> +check-eina-cxx:
>> + $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) -C src check-eina-cxx
>> +check-ecore:
>> + $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) -C src check-ecore
>> +check-ecore-audio-cxx:
>> + $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) -C src check-ecore-audio-cxx
>> +check-ecore-con:
>> + $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) -C src check-ecore-con
>> +check-ecore-cxx:
>> + $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) -C src check-ecore-cxx
>> +check-ecore-cxx-compile:
>> + $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) -C src check-ecore-cxx-compile
>> +check-ector:
>> + $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) -C src check-ector
>> +check-edje:
>> + $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) -C src check-edje
>> +check-edje-cxx:
>> + $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) -C src check-edje-cxx
>> +check-eet:
>> + $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) -C src check-eet
>> +check-eet-cxx:
>> + $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) -C src check-eet-cxx
>> +check-eeze:
>> + $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) -C src check-eeze
>> +check-efreet:
>> + $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) -C src check-efreet
>> +check-eio:
>> + $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) -C src check-eio
>> +check-eldbus:
>> + $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) -C src check-eldbus
>> +check-eldbus-cxx:
>> + $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) -C src check-eldbus-cxx
>> +check-emile:
>> + $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) -C src check-emile
>> +check-eo:
>> + $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) -C src check-eo
>> +check-eo-composite-object:
>> + $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) -C src check-eo-composite-object
>> +check-eo-constructors:
>> + $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) -C src check-eo-constructors
>> +check-eo-function-overrides:
>> + $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) -C src check-eo-function-overrides
>> +check-eo-interface:
>> + $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) -C src check-eo-interface
>> +check-eo-mixin:
>> + $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) -C src check-eo-mixin
>> +check-eo-text-access:
>> + $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) -C src check-eo-text-access
>> +check-eo-signals:
>> + $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) -C src check-eo-signals
>> +check-eo-children:
>> + $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) -C src check-eo-children
>> +check-eolian:
>> + $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) -C src check-eolian
>> +check-eolian-cxx:
>> + $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) -C src check-eolian-cxx
>> +check-evas:
>> + $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) -C src check-evas
>> +check-evas-cxx:
>> + $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) -C src check-evas-cxx
>> endif
>>
>This makes the whole approach quite inflexible. Tom brought this up in a
>recent discussion. One have to add these extra check rules for all new
>modules, etc.
>
>His proposal is to have one make rule that compiles all the tests and a
>small shell script check.sh which can run the test suites more flexible
>by figuring out things by the given parameters. E.g.
>
>make check-build #compile all test suites
>
.>/check.sh evas
.>/check.sh evas textblock
.>/check.sh eo composite
>...
This will give more granularity. I didn't knew that this was planned. I
would have known if this was discussed in mailing list.
>
>I would be ok with that. The only thing I do not want to loose is having
>ALL test suites running with make check. This has to stay like we have
>right now.
make check is running all test suites in this approach as well.
>For people that want to speed up their testing by using only subtests it
>should not really matter if that is a make rule or shell script with
params.
>
>Any opinions on this?
>
>regards
>Stefan Schmidt
regards
Kabeer
[cid:Z5JE7EUABGFC@namo.co.kr]
[SeenTimeChecker?do=fe69aed3ab8a86ca0f6f389bbe0da349243661fefb3c5c9153e47e2f
243a5ca9ddc79e3cd10304db25139e580ce36374e458eb91567068af8048f33cf1ed6b022630
67d8b8f027b11b20909a04efd4d2748cfe1d4e847419cf878f9a26ce15a0]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
