On 02.09.22 18:57, Andres Freund wrote:
Is it worth running ninja -t missingdeps as a test? At the time we run tests
we'll obviously have built and thus collected "real" dependencies, so we would
have the necessary information to determine whether dependencies are missing.
I think it'd be fine to do so only for ninja >= 1.11, rather than falling back
to the llvm python implementation, which is much slower (0.068s vs
3.760s). And also because it's not as obvious how to include the python script.
Alternatively, we could just document that ninja -t missingdeps is worth
running. Perhaps at the top of the toplevel build.meson file?
In the GNU/make world there is a distinction between "check" and
"maintainer-check" for this kind of thing.
I think here if we put these kinds of things into a different, what's
the term, "suite", then that would be a clear way to collect them and be
able to run them all easily.
