On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Tom Hacohen <t...@osg.samsung.com> wrote: > On 08/05/15 10:36, Cedric BAIL wrote: >> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Tom Hacohen <t...@osg.samsung.com> wrote: >>> This is a bad idea and not flexible. We've already been talking about it >>> in private, too bad that it has been pushed like that. >>> >>> The thing is, this is very inflexible and has to be manually updated. It >>> doesn't let you do things like testing specific sub modules like >>> "textblock", which can be done by calling the test suite, and it needs >>> to be manually updated. It's quite simple to do it nicely (already >>> suggested it in private) with a simple (automatic) ./check.sh script. >> >> I still think you are wrong ! The current tests suite provide all the >> flexibility you need as Srivardan pointed out and it is trivial to do >> your check.sh once we have make check-build. Still yours is not as >> flexible, as you can't run multiple check at once. Also the next patch >> that would improve the overall system would provide the support for a >> fnmatch rules, something along the line of EFL_TESTS="*text*" and that >> would just run in all efl tests suite only things that are related to >> text. >> >> I am not dismissing what you are asking for. check.sh would be at >> least useful to you, but it won't provide what I am looking for, a >> fast check covering an entire topic (I usually care more about >> coverage than just one small tests case as when I do change something >> it usually has side effect in random place). That's pretty much >> orthogonal. > > I'm not really that set on check.sh. I'm just concerned about having to
Well, check.sh will just be an helper that set environment variable so you don't need to remember them. I am sure it will be useful ;-) > manually update make check-*. I had no idea about the env vars, they do > provide the flexibility we need. However then, we don't need make > check-evas any more, do we? We can just filter with the env vars... The idea behind make check-evas and friends is that you could do 'make check-evas check-edje' in one go. Added in the filter stuff and we would have a way to do tests coverage on one larger area. As in the long term we are going to merge elementary and more library in, I think it makes sense to handle that this way. > All I'm saying is that make is not flexible at all, trying to force make > into dealing with it sounds like a dead end, or at least, a painful route. The Makefile.am change where pretty straigh forward and are an absolute triviality to maintain. Did you look at the patch ? Cedric ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
