Am 19.04.2016 um 18:49 hat Sascha Silbe geschrieben: > Dear Markus, > > Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> writes: > > > Say you had an accurate way to find out whether we're running under > > "check". You could then reject any attempt to run the test directly. > > I'd oppose that. > > > > It's okay to have test wrapper scripts to configure the tests just so. > > It's okay to tell people to use them. But "you can't do that, Dave" is > > not okay. [...] > > AFAICT the environment in which the individual test cases run isn't > well-defined. Currently it's indirectly defined by whatever "check" > does. > > The goal of the patch is to catch unwary developers invoking the tests > directly from the command line, providing them with useful advice. If > somebody wants to write another test runner (in place of "check"), it's > their responsibility to set up the environment appropriately. (They > could even set an environment variable "I_AM_CHECK=yes" if that's part > of the environment the tests expect). > > I'd be perfectly fine with defining the environment more clearly and > possibly extending the implementation to allow individual test cases to > be invoked directly (without a test runner like "check"). But that would > be 2.7 material.
At this point in the 2.6 release cycle, this series is 2.7 material anyway. It's critical fixes only now. Kevin
