Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 12:22:23PM -0800, chromatic wrote:
On Monday 02 March 2009 09:41:51 Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
I suggest that we add a "critical" ticket for each of
the major releases whereby we verify that the major HLLs
can still be built against the code being considered for
the release, or at least that we can positively identify
that any problems are in the HLL code and not something
that requires a Parrot internals fix (as was needed for
r37061).
We also need tests for *every* bugfix for HLL breakage. Every time our
existing test suite doesn't catch this problem, we know it's incomplete. I
didn't see a test added for r37061.
To be honest, I don't think any of us know what caused the
r37061 bug in the first place to be able to formulate it into
a test. Like you, I'm presuming that all of the other 'make
test' scripts worked fine, and it was only when trying to compile
Rakudo (perl6.pir) to perl6.pbc that we saw the bug.
Correct. The bug was not exposed by Parrot's make test, but only by Rakudo's
build. I'll close TT #388 once there's a test in Parrot to make sure this bug
doesn't resurface.
Better HLL testing strikes me as a good idea. However, it will also
significantly increase the time it takes to test a change, especially as other
HLLs are developed. Is there a good rule of thumb for which tests should be
run when testing a change or bugfix, or is the advice "run rakudo's spectest"
every time?
_______________________________________________
http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev
