Josh Steadmon <steadmon@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 2023.11.14 08:55, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > I do have to wonder, though, as somebody who did not follow the >> > unit-test topic closely: why are the unit tests totally separate from >> > the rest of the suite? I would think we'd want them run from one or more >> > t/t*.sh scripts. That would make bugs like this impossible, but also: >> > >> > 1. They'd be run via "make test", so developers don't have to remember >> > to run them separately. >> > >> > 2. They can be run in parallel with all of the other tests when using >> > "prove -j", etc. >> >> Very good points. Josh? > > In short, the last time I tried to add something to CI, it was not well > received, so I've been perhaps overly cautious in keeping the unit-tests > well-separated from other targets. But I can send a follow-up patch to > fold them into `make test`. Or would you prefer that I send a v11 of > js/doc-unit-tests instead? Incremental patches to update what is in 'next' would let us try out the new arragement to drive the tests from the main "make test" eaarlier. Post release, a new iteration could replace the series wholesale as we will have an opportunity to rebuild 'next', but it would be nice for the end states to match, if you were to do both. Thanks.
