On Friday 21 September 2007, Andreas Pakulat wrote: > On 20.09.07 18:43:25, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > > Two more notes: > > to run tests (i.e. added via ADD_TEST) it is not necessary to know where > > the > > executable is located. You can run the tests via ctest: > > $ ctest <- runs all tests in this dir and below > > $ ctest -R kio <- runs all tests whose name match .*kio.* > > There are more options like this. > > Ok, that should be advertised, especially the ctest -V -R <test> method > to see the output from the tests so one knows which tests fail.
Good tips, but really, ./kservicetest is just much simpler. It allows to also do gdb ./kservicetest and valgrind ./kservicetest, so it needs to stay this way. > > I understand you this way that we remove the side effect now and put the > > EXECUTABLE_OUTPUT_PATH in the cmake files back -> no side effect, tests are > > in the current dir, everybody sees what's going on. > > > > But where do you see a problem with putting the SET_TARGET_PROPERTIES() > > call > > which sets the individual output path in the macro now ? > > I don't see any problem with putting the EXECUTABLE_OUTPUT_PATH back > into the CMake files and also setting the target property. I never said > that and I certainly never meant to imply that. Adding the property is a good idea of course. Putting the variable back into the cmake files: well, if it makes you (Alex) sleep better, go ahead. Please realize though that it will re-create some inconsistency in the various tests dirs around (some people will forget it), so I preferred the idea of leaving it in the macro until cmake-2.6, but I will sleep OK if you move it back to the cmake files :) -- David Faure, [EMAIL PROTECTED], sponsored by Trolltech to work on KDE, Konqueror (http://www.konqueror.org), and KOffice (http://www.koffice.org). _______________________________________________ Kde-buildsystem mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-buildsystem
