On 12/07/2016 10:35 AM, Michael Steinberg wrote: > Hello Orson, > > > Am 07.12.2016 um 10:29 schrieb Maciej Sumiński: >> I used to work with projects that had multiple small unit tests and it >> was quite neat solution. Do you think it would be much harder to apply >> the same rules here? If so, I would not mind having one-to-one relation >> between targets and tests, especially that one can easily separate tests >> using boost.test judging from the screenshot you posted. >> >> Regards, >> Orson > That would absolutely be possible, my intention avoiding that on the > first shot was only that I feared having a full executable link process > per test/test case might be a bit troublesome in the long run. Did you > have no problems with that, how many tests were there, did it slow down > the build process at all? No matter how many test targets we produce, > CTest will only ever say "passed" or "not passed" for each without any > further information of what is the cause, if I'm not completely mistaken. > > Michael
Linking against a shared library (e.g. _pcbnew.kiface) should be quick. Tom has been testing a similar approach [1], though without using CTest, but it shows the idea. CTest is able to give extra information once a build fails [2]. Apparently whatever approach we choose we will have more or less the same information available. I do not really see any exceptional benefit of one method over the other, so IMHO we can go with whatever is easier to set up. Regards, Orson 1. https://github.com/twlostow/kicad-dev/commit/bec46081ea3bf0e2862615fc6040a86beda5785f 2. https://cmake.org/cmake/help/v2.8.8/ctest.html#opt%3a--output-on-failure
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
