Mike Looijmans wrote:
Oh and if we are refactoring the tests, I want a "make tests" rule. I'm
tired of doing: ./configure; make; sudo make install; make tests; DOH!
cd test; python test.py. :)
Make that "make check" (like autotools), to not confuse old-skool
autoconfers like myself.
That w
Oh and if we are refactoring the tests, I want a "make tests" rule. I'm
tired of doing: ./configure; make; sudo make install; make tests; DOH!
cd test; python test.py. :)
Make that "make check" (like autotools), to not confuse old-skool
autoconfers like myself.
My only comment is that, especially if tests are being split into
separate files, that the access/error log files be distinct for each
test with a name incorporating the name of the test. I always
found it a pain to try and dig through a big log of multiple tests
trying to work out which was the o
Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
Hi,
There is something I'd like to do for the 3.3 version : it is to
refactor the test suite. It's more a chore than real development, but
the current test suite is slowly becoming big and quite difficult to
maintain.
Also, I think the size and complexity may be intimidat
Hi,
There is something I'd like to do for the 3.3 version : it is to
refactor the test suite. It's more a chore than real development, but
the current test suite is slowly becoming big and quite difficult to
maintain.
What I'd like to do is simply split the test runner and the published
tests in
