Right way to cope with user error in make test?
Steven Edwards
winehacker at gmail.com
Sat May 17 22:09:41 CDT 2008
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Jeremy White <jwhite at winehq.org> wrote:
> Yah; I think to some extent we need to wait for Alexandre to express
> an opinion on how, if at all, he'd like to address this.
>
> We seem to have come up with about 4 approaches:
> 1. Skip the test. Rob thinks Alexandre will reject this
> 2. Make WINE_NOTICE_WITH be default error; i.e. require
> an explicit --without in order to skip a package you lack
> 3. Create some sort of config record; a config.id if you will.
> This could then be read by dotests and/or winetests
> to not transmit the results.
> (As a side note, this might be handy place to put
> a git HEAD which might allow my winetest patches to go in,
> thereby eliminating the need for an out of tree dotests. But no bias here <grin>).
> 4. Have dotests scan the existing config.log file.
1. really seems to me like the right method. including config.h in the
test and doing something like
START_TEST(foo_and_bar)
{
#ifdef HAVE_FOO
test_foo()
#endif
test_bar()
}
I don't see why we can't do this along with embedding the config.h
information the winetest transmission data. This will greatly help
with the number of false failures.
Thanks
--
--
Steven Edwards
"There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and
that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo
More information about the wine-devel
mailing list