On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 6:53 AM, Gerard Gorman <g.gorman at imperial.ac.uk>wrote:
> Slightly off topic - but I have Buildbot set up locally to keep an eye > on petsc-dev and various branches of petsc that I care about (if you are > curious see http://stereolab.ese.ic.ac.uk:8080/waterfall - knock > yourself out with the force build button if you wish) > > Because this is a bot, 99% of time I only care about "pass", "fail" ($? > != 0 is counted as a fail), "warning". For the testharness in our own > application code we just parse the output of unit tests for "pass", > "fail" and "warning" and list the tests that gave a warning or fail at > the end so a developer can take a closer look. I would like to do a > similar grepping for PETSc tests. Are the tests messages standardised so > I can do this? At first glance I have: > > "pass" == "run successfully with" > "warning" == "Possible problem with" > "fail" == "mpiexec not found" or $? != 0 > I think you want http://petsc.cs.iit.edu/petsc/petsc-dev/annotate/c11230be07bd/bin/maint/checkBuilds.py for builds, and what you have for tests. Matt Cheers > Gerard > > -- What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead. -- Norbert Wiener -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120728/1dbcf39d/attachment.html>
