Re: [PATCH 2/2] build: run checks in distinct directories

[Akim Demaille]

Le 14 déc. 2012 à 11:09, Théophile Ranquet <address@hidden> a écrit :

>> I'd prefer that you use && instead of ;, and that you:
>> 
>>  RUN_TESTSUITE =  \
>>     foo           \
>>     bar           \
>>     baz
>> 
>> instead.
> 
> So, like this?
> 
> -# Move into tests/ so that testsuite.dir etc. be created there.
> -RUN_TESTSUITE = $(TESTSUITE) -C tests $(TESTSUITEFLAGS)
> +# Move into tests/ so that testsuite.dir etc. be created there.  If a suffix 
> is
> +# specified, create it in a corresponding subdirectory of tests/.
> +RUN_TESTSUITE = dir=tests/$$suf                                        \
> +                 && (test -d $$dir || mkdir $$dir)             \
> +                 && (test -f $$dir/atconfig                    \
> +                   || cp tests/atconfig $$dir)                 \
> +                 && (test -f $$dir/atlocal                     \
> +                   || cp tests/atlocal  $$dir)                 \
> +                 && $(TESTSUITE) -C $$dir $(TESTSUITEFLAGS)

No, more like this:

RUN_TESTSUITE =                                                \
  dir=tests/$$suf                                              \
     && { test -d $$dir || mkdir $$dir; }                      \
     && { test -f $$dir/atconfig || cp tests/atconfig $$dir; } \
     && { test -f $$dir/atlocal || cp tests/atlocal $$dir; }   \
     && $(TESTSUITE) -C $$dir $(TESTSUITEFLAGS)

Note that:
 - ( ) is a subshell, this is uselessly expensive
 - this scheme does not ensure that if atconfig etc. change,
   we propagate the changes, this is wrong.

We should probably expose even _more_ things to Make and let
dependencies do all this.

>> Please, also prepare a patch where the names are more consistent, and 
>> README-hacking is updated to reflect these changes.
> 
> On second thoughts, I like the difference in names. The task
> accomplished by maintainer-{push,xml}-check really is on a different
> level from that accomplished by maintainer -check-*. However, we might
> want to consider the following, if there is no real motivation to keep
> the 'push' and the 'xml' checks distinct.
> 
> .PHONY: maintainer-release-check
> -maintainer-release-check: maintainer-check maintainer-push-check
> maintainer-xml-check
> +maintainer-release-check:
> +       $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) maintainer-check                        \
> +         TESTSUITEFLAGS='BISON_TEST_XML=1                              \
> +                         BISON_USE_PUSH_FOR_PULL=1                     \
> +                         $(TESTSUITEFLAGS)'

Good idea.  But then, I'd prefer to have a --maintainer option added
to the testsuite, and you'd pass these flags instead of fiddling with
variables.  See what's done for --compile-c-with-c++ to see what I
mean.