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