[test.winehq.org] missing tests

[Ferenc Wagner]

"Dimitrie O. Paun" <dpaun at rogers.com> writes:

>>>   3. We are running multiple test _per_ build, but only
>>>      one is curretly reported. Currently, it says:
>>> 	Main summary for build 200406171000 
>>>      where '200406171000' is a link to the test. But since
>>>      we have multiple downloads, it should be:
>>> 	Main summary for build 200406171000: [0] [1] [2] [3]
>>>      (or somesuch), where [x] is a link to the download.
>
> Just append the above index to the Tag, separated by ':'.

I think separate columns would serve us better by not
repeating the overly long tags several times.  The problem
is rather: where to get these numbers (or anything) from?
In principle it would be possible to mine them out of the
archive URL, but Kevin and Paul have different naming
conventions and the URL should be kept flexible.  That's why
I think we need a new piece of information stored in the
reports.  [See also at the end!]

> For now each submit two: one .zip, one compressed with as
> a self-extractable.

I'm not sure I understand this.  The above two should always
produce the exact same results, shouldn't they?  They
contain the same executable after all...

> We hope to also have a MSVC build in the future.

That would be a nice addition, really.

> Not if we separate them as I suggested above. I don't think
> we currently allow ':' and '.' in the Tag.

Currently it's [-.a-zA-Z0-9]*.

>> It would be possible to subdivide the columns under the tags
>> by builds.  We would need a short build id for this at a
>> well-defined place, like in a new field in the report or
>> maybe in the first line of the Build info: block.
>
> We can just assign numbers for that as I suggested above.
> As long as we list in the begginning what each number
> is (that is, the URL for it) we should be fine. Since they
> all should come from the same BUILD-ID, there should be
> no difference between then anyway (usually :).

Ah, finally I understand you.  I think.  So do you suggest
that [1] and [2] may mean different things on different
pages?  That would be possible with what we have now, you
are right.  I can give it a shot, but only after having some
sleep and maybe soccer, even.
-- 
Feri.