On 05/02/2012 06:07 PM, Jeff King wrote:
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 05:31:52PM +0200, mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
prove(1) can write a summary of its test results and timings into a
cache file, t/.prove, then use this information during later runs for
various purposes. But deleting t/.prove after every test run defeats
this purpose. So do not delete t/.prove as part of "make
DEFAILT_TEST_TARGET=prove test". (Continue to delete the file on
"make clean".)
Thanks. I had found some odd behaviors with putting "--state" into
GIT_PROVE_OPTS when I first switched my setup to use prove, but I didn't
investigate. I think this issue explained some of what I saw.
Do note, though, that we only clean ".prove" on a successful run. So
something like "--state=hot,save" will still see the cache from the last
run if there were failures. However, the prove cache is meant to be kept
across many runs, even successful ones, so I think your patch makes
sense.
---
prove(1) can be told to retain information about test runs, and to use
it for interesting purposes during future invocations. For example,
it can be told to run tests that failed during the last run:
GIT_PROVE_OPTS = --state=failed,save
I don't think this actually works, because we also feed all of the test
scripts to prove on the command line. So it will run them all, both
failed and successful.
I'm not sure if it is worth solving for "make test". I suspect having
that not test everything would be error prone (i.e., it's too easy to
accidentally not run the full suite when you meant to, and unexpected
regressions in other tests will go unnoticed). You can always run
"prove" yourself from the command line, or we can add a new target to do
a partial test (with other options set up properly).
I totally believe you that some of the variations that I listed in my
commentary don't work in the git context. I'm not a prove expert; I
just noticed that removing the .prove file is counterproductive and
breaks some other prove features. I also agree with you that it would
be dangerous to encourage partial testing and that it is therefore not a
priority to make the use case that you mentioned work in the git context.
I still think my patch makes sense. The error that Peff pointed out was
in my commentary, not in the patch itself or in the log message. Junio,
is there something else keeping you from applying this patch?
Michael
--
Michael Haggerty
mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html