Hi Ævar,
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29 2019, Jeff King wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 06:56:08AM -0800, Derrick Stolee via
> > GitGitGadget wrote:
> >
> >> From: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> When running the test suite for code coverage using
> >> 'make coverage-test', a single test failure stops the
> >> test suite from completing. This leads to significant
> >> undercounting of covered blocks.
> >>
> >> Add two new targets to the Makefile:
> >>
> >> * 'prove' runs the test suite using 'prove'.
> >>
> >> * 'coverage-prove' compiles the source using the
> >> coverage flags, then runs the test suite using
> >> 'prove'.
> >>
> >> These targets are modeled after the 'test' and
> >> 'coverage-test' targets.
> >
> > I think these are reasonable to have (and I personally much prefer
> > "prove" to the raw "make test" output anyway).
>
> I wonder if anyone would mind if we removed the non-prove path.
>
> When I added it in 5099b99d25 ("test-lib: Adjust output to be valid TAP
> format", 2010-06-24) there were still some commonly shipped OS's that
> had a crappy old "prove", but now almost a decade later that's not a
> practical problem, and it's installed by default with perl, and we
> already depend on perl for the tests.
It's not only about crappy old `prove`, it is also about requiring Perl
(and remember, Perl is not really native in Git for Windows' case; I still
have a hunch that we could save on time *dramatically* by simply running
through regular `make` rather than through `prove`).
I did start to implement a parallel test runner for use with BusyBox-based
MinGit, but dropped the ball on that front before I could satisfy myself
that this is robust enough. Once it *is* robust enough, we could even
replace the entire `prove` support with a native, test-tool driven test
framework.
> I don't feel strongly about it, but it would allow us to prune some
> login in the test library / Makefile.
>
> Maybe something for a show of hands at the contributor summit?
Sure, let's put it up for discussion.
Ciao,
Dscho
