On 12 Mar 2010, at 12:37, Jani Taskinen wrote:
On 03/12/2010 12:29 PM, Hannes Magnusson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:18, Jani Taskinen
wrote:
Having tests in multiple branches is PITA. Hasn't anyone
considered that the
best way would be to move all tests into their own repository
(di
On 12 Mar 2010, at 20:23, Pierre Joye wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Alexey Zakhlestin
wrote:
On 12.03.2010, at 22:06, Pierre Joye wrote:
Many tests fail because they are written for a given platform, or
even
worst (from a portability point of view), only for a given
configurat
On 12 Mar 2010, at 23:33, Jani Taskinen wrote:
13.3.2010 0:18, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
There are going to be some technical challenges. Some (maybe a
lot) of
test
will need updates or rewriting. run-tests.php may need more
improvements
than what is already planned. Knowing this, I
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Daniel Convissor wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 06:53:49PM -0500, Eric Stewart wrote:
> >
> > If I'm given the choice of those differences being in one file or in three
> > different files (5.2, 5.3, 6.0)? I choose one file. Even if that files is
> > more complex. It's stil
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Pierre Joye wrote
> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 12:27 AM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>> Hi!
>> It is possible, but that means instead of 2 trees of files you'd have these
>> trees distributed inside test files in a myriad of small if()s:
>> if(version == X) { test thi
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 22:18, Eric Stewart wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 6:37 AM, Jani Taskinen wrote:
>
>> On 03/12/2010 12:29 PM, Hannes Magnusson wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:18, Jani Taskinen
>>> wrote:
>>>
Having tests in multiple branches is PITA. Hasn't anyone conside
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 06:53:49PM -0500, Eric Stewart wrote:
>
> If I'm given the choice of those differences being in one file or in three
> different files (5.2, 5.3, 6.0)? I choose one file. Even if that files is
> more complex. It's still one file. One commit. One place to look for
> problems
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 12:27 AM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> It is always possible to write a test for both versions (except
>> namespace). However it requires a radical change on how we test
>> things.
>> Instead of testing the output of given script, we will have to add
>> logics in a
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>
> It is always possible to write a test for both versions (except
>> namespace). However it requires a radical change on how we test
>> things.
>> Instead of testing the output of given script, we will have to add
>> logics in
Hi!
It is always possible to write a test for both versions (except
namespace). However it requires a radical change on how we test
things.
Instead of testing the output of given script, we will have to add
logics in a test, something similar to the classic xUnit frameworks.
For example, we will
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 12:04 AM, Eric Stewart wrote:
> I think specific examples (ie: a link to a 5.2 test and the corresponding
> 5.3 test) which are currently impossible to merge would be most beneficial
> at this point.
>
> I'll search for some this evening. If anyone knows of one or two off
Hi!
I think specific examples (ie: a link to a 5.2 test and the corresponding
5.3 test) which are currently impossible to merge would be most beneficial
at this point.
Do a diff between two test dirs (you can use engine tests, php main
tests, etc.), get a list of different files and diff them
Hi!
What tests are you really talking about here? I thought we have
regression tests in there which test that stuff does not change between
Yes, we have those. But we also have other tests, which are different
between versions.
should not be any need for any updates given the tests aren't
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Jani Taskinen
> wrote:
> > 13.3.2010 0:18, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >>> There are going to be some technical challenges. Some (maybe a lot) of
> >>> test
> >>> will need updates or rewri
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Jani Taskinen wrote:
> 13.3.2010 0:18, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>>> There are going to be some technical challenges. Some (maybe a lot) of
>>> test
>>> will need updates or rewriting. run-tests.php may need more improvements
>>> than what is already
13.3.2010 0:18, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
There are going to be some technical challenges. Some (maybe a lot) of
test
will need updates or rewriting. run-tests.php may need more improvements
than what is already planned. Knowing this, I would still rather update
run-tests.php and fix the te
Hi!
There are going to be some technical challenges. Some (maybe a lot) of test
will need updates or rewriting. run-tests.php may need more improvements
than what is already planned. Knowing this, I would still rather update
run-tests.php and fix the tests, then continue to applying tests to
dif
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>
> That's easy to say - but how exactly you're going to test
>>> functionality of, say. ext/intl without testing the underlying ICU
>>> library?
>>>
>>
>> Well, here's the way I see it:
>>
>> Extensions (including ext/intl) decl
Hi!
That's easy to say - but how exactly you're going to test
functionality of, say. ext/intl without testing the underlying ICU
library?
Well, here's the way I see it:
Extensions (including ext/intl) declare their API and tests are made
againt this API. No more and no less.
It's all sounds
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 6:37 AM, Jani Taskinen wrote:
> On 03/12/2010 12:29 PM, Hannes Magnusson wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:18, Jani Taskinen
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Having tests in multiple branches is PITA. Hasn't anyone considered that
>>> the
>>> best way would be to move all tests into
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
>
> On 12.03.2010, at 22:23, Pierre Joye wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Alexey Zakhlestin
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12.03.2010, at 22:06, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>>
Many tests fail because they are written for a given platform,
On 12.03.2010, at 22:23, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
>>
>> On 12.03.2010, at 22:06, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>
>>> Many tests fail because they are written for a given platform, or even
>>> worst (from a portability point of view), only for a given
On 12.03.2010, at 22:20, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Well, these tests should just be removed/rewritten.
>> Php-tests should test php, not libraries
>
> That's easy to say - but how exactly you're going to test functionality of,
> say. ext/intl without testing the underlying ICU libra
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
>
> On 12.03.2010, at 22:06, Pierre Joye wrote:
>
>> Many tests fail because they are written for a given platform, or even
>> worst (from a portability point of view), only for a given
>> configuration (library version, system version,etc.
Hi!
Well, these tests should just be removed/rewritten.
Php-tests should test php, not libraries
That's easy to say - but how exactly you're going to test functionality
of, say. ext/intl without testing the underlying ICU library?
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
s...@zend.com
On 12.03.2010, at 22:06, Pierre Joye wrote:
> Many tests fail because they are written for a given platform, or even
> worst (from a portability point of view), only for a given
> configuration (library version, system version,etc.). And that's not
> about windows vs other, tests can work on a De
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Jani Taskinen wrote:
> On 03/12/2010 08:08 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>>> Having tests in multiple branches is PITA. Hasn't anyone considered that
>>> the best way would be to move all tests into their own repository
>>> (directory..whatever :) in S
Hi!
That's why we'd need to add some section to select the minimum version
required to run the test.
How minimum version would help? If 5.2 requires one test, 5.3 another
and trunk another - you either have to have 3 tests or declare that only
thing you're testing is trunk (which is obviousl
On 03/12/2010 04:15 PM, Ulf Wendel wrote:
For a transition period there's likely to be more work and the number of
test failures is likely to go up. That is nothing to really worry about
as long as you manage to educate users that it is not a quality defect
of PHP as such but a temporary matter o
On 03/12/2010 08:08 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
Having tests in multiple branches is PITA. Hasn't anyone considered that
the best way would be to move all tests into their own repository
(directory..whatever :) in SVN..? Considering they are supposed to be
Yes, but: some tests are versi
Hi!
Having tests in multiple branches is PITA. Hasn't anyone considered that
the best way would be to move all tests into their own repository
(directory..whatever :) in SVN..? Considering they are supposed to be
Yes, but: some tests are version-dependant, some are not. And since we
have this
On Mar 12, 2010, at 5:33 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>> Having tests in multiple branches is PITA. Hasn't anyone considered that the
>> best way would be to move all tests into their own repository
>> (directory..whatever :) in SVN..? Considering they are supposed to be used
>> for testing against regre
Jani Taskinen schrieb:
What you risk is that not each and every test is prepared for being run
with every version - although, maybe, in theory it should be. This is
It should not be theory for regression tests? If new release does not
pass the old tests but the old versions still do, then it's
On 03/12/2010 01:48 PM, Ulf Wendel wrote:
Jani Taskinen schrieb:
Having tests in multiple branches is PITA. Hasn't anyone considered
that the best way would be to move all tests into their own repository
(directory..whatever :) in SVN..? Considering they are supposed to be
used for testing again
On 12.03.2010 12:37, Jani Taskinen wrote:
>> Some tests however are not supposed to work in earlier releases, so we
>> need to either add a new
>> ==SKIP-VERSION==
>> 5.2, 5.1, 5.0
>
> Perhaps something like required min version is better.
Imo you need both >V.E.R,
signature.asc
Description: Op
Jani Taskinen schrieb:
Having tests in multiple branches is PITA. Hasn't anyone considered that
the best way would be to move all tests into their own repository
(directory..whatever :) in SVN..? Considering they are supposed to be
used for testing against regressions and BC breaks, they should
On 03/12/2010 12:29 PM, Hannes Magnusson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:18, Jani Taskinen wrote:
Having tests in multiple branches is PITA. Hasn't anyone considered that the
best way would be to move all tests into their own repository
(directory..whatever :) in SVN..? Considering they are s
Hannes Magnusson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:18, Jani Taskinen wrote:
Having tests in multiple branches is PITA. Hasn't anyone considered that the
best way would be to move all tests into their own repository
(directory..whatever :) in SVN..? Considering they are supposed to be used
for t
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Jani Taskinen wrote:
> Having tests in multiple branches is PITA. Hasn't anyone considered that the
> best way would be to move all tests into their own repository
> (directory..whatever :) in SVN..? Considering they are supposed to be used
> for testing against r
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:18, Jani Taskinen wrote:
> Having tests in multiple branches is PITA. Hasn't anyone considered that the
> best way would be to move all tests into their own repository
> (directory..whatever :) in SVN..? Considering they are supposed to be used
> for testing against regr
40 matches
Mail list logo
