wferi at afavant.elte.hu
Mon Sep 29 16:31:29 CDT 2003
"Dimitrie O. Paun" <dpaun at rogers.com> writes:
> On September 27, 2003 07:42 pm, Jakob Eriksson wrote:
>> Do you want a second file generated apart from the mail
>> sent to wine-tests-report? (If yes, where should this
>> file be sent?)
> I'm not sure I like this idea. Correlating the two files
> is potentially problematic, the best thing is if we bundle
> this information somehow into the report itself. This way
> the results can be interpreted context-free, which is a
> good thing.
I did not like this idea either, but decided to go with it
in the end. First, to generate summaries I have to
correlate files anyway, which *is* problematic already, and
having a master file could only make it simpler and also
make the cause more obvious if some inconsistency is found.
Second, we want to include build failure reports, which can
be lengthy (eg. compiler logs), and do not seem to belong to
the test results. For an example, see how the dsound test
build failure is noted on the page. The summary line could
also easily be customized.
> Maybe we can simply add a flag to the tests so that the
> first thing they do when we run them is to output all this
How is it better than recording the info at the build stage?
Since it has nothing to do with the running environment,
that would also feel more natural to me.
Sure, all the info could be included in the reports, but I
see no point in bloating them with too much static info for
little (if any) benefit. One more thing, I really do not
have the faintest idea about how to integrate this into the
WineHQ page. There may be reasons there, too, like eg. the
need to notify the system about a new build, which could be
done by uploading the information skeleton...
Feel free to persuade me, I am not attached.
More information about the wine-devel