On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 08:53:23AM +0100, Thomas Haller wrote: > On Tue, 2023-11-21 at 13:37 +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 01:34:54PM +0100, Thomas Haller wrote: > > > Hi Pablo, > > > > > > any concerns about this? Could it be merged? > > > > Sorry. JSON support is not working, I had to locally revert those > > patches to run tests on -stable 5.4 here. > > > > Let's agree on some basic rule from now on: One series at a time > > only, > > anything else coming after will be marked as deferred in patchwork. > > > > Thanks. > > > > > Hi, > > Could this be considered? > > This provides the basis for unit tests (and the possibility to even add > any such tests). We are still discussing the json integration into tests/shell. I suggest, let dust settle on each front before making more changes. > It also hooks up tests to `make check`. Which would be desirable to > build upon. `make check` currently does nothing. For example, Florian's > afl++ patches could hook into `make check` (or `make check-more`), if > this basis was there. I still doubt `make check` provides any benefit to the release process, which will exercise this path because of `make distcheck' which I might have to relax it to `make dist' to skip this to ensure release process is reliable. I think all these tests should continously and provide reports to us, but not necessarily integrate them into `make check'.
