Re: Parallel tests execution [0/4]

[Ralf Wildenhues]

Hi Akim,

thanks for the feedback!

* Akim Demaille wrote on Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 04:05:47PM CEST:
> >>> "RW" == Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>  > These four patches implement parallel execution of TESTS in Automake,
>  > adapted from the check.mk file Akim Demaille posted earlier.
> 
> For the records, I attached the version I'm currently using.

Thanks.  FWIW, it still has some of the portability issues that I
mentioned.

>  > 6) lazy test completion (do not rerun already-run tests),
> 
> This one must be optional, but it provides huge savings when it
> applies.

Agreed on both accounts.  It is optional in the version I have.

>  > - (5), (6), (8) are provided already by the check.mk code, except that
>  >   (8) didn't work.
> 
> Actually I never meant to have hard error stop the whole test suite.
> The point of hard-errors as they were defined in check.mk was to make
> them *non* ignorable.  For instance our test suite raises a hard-error
> if the program make a segmentation fault, which we never want to
> tolerate.

I don't understand.  What is the difference to a normail FAIL then,
i.e., to the process exiting with 1?

>  > - output `PASS: foo.test' not `PASS: foo.log'
> 
> This was actually a feature :) We use an Emacs mode that opens the
> (log) file when we click on it.

But it's not the log file that fails.  I found this very non-intuitive.
I might be talked into a compromise, though; for example like this:
  FAIL: sub/foo.test (see sub/foo.log)

WDYT?

>  > - is everybody ok with the following authorship for patch 1/4?
>  >   2008-10-XX  Akim Demaille <address@hidden>
>  >               Jim Meyering <address@hidden>
>  >               Benoit Sigoure <address@hidden>
>  >               Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden>
> 
>  >   (as git allows only one author, I will put the first name in --author)
> 
> Thanks :)  I think that some of the parts about tput were from Bob
> Proulx, but I'm not sure.

I ripped out all the tput parts, because in my tests they were far less
portable than escape sequences.  If there are other things from Bob then
I'll happily add him.

>  > - how should I best acknowledge The Vaucanson Group?  Something like
>  > this in lib/am/check.am ok?
> 
>  > ## This code is adapted from check.mk which came from:
>  > ##
>  > ## Vaucanson, a generic library for finite state machines.
>  > ## Copyright (C) 2006, 2007 The Vaucanson Group.
> 
> Actually it would be more fair to thanks EPITA and Gostai, both worked
> on it, and Vaucanson was just the initial impetus to develop this.

OK, I will use this:

  ## This code is adapted from check.mk which was originally
  ## written by The Vaucanson Group, further developer at
  ## EPITA and Gostai, then made its way from GNU coreutils
  ## to end up, largely rewritten, in Automake.

>  > The only reason I haven't put this in yet is that it would require a
>  > copyright disclaimer from Vaucanson.  What do you think?
> 
> A mere thank, or whatever you feel is most appropriate will be
> perfect.

OK, thanks.

Cheers,
Ralf