Re: [MERGE] build-test: fixed err detection and added multi-test support

From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov_at_measurement-factory.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:01:11 -0600

On 03/09/2009 04:01 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> Target string is logged by the master make file _after_ all make targets
> are completed successfully. Anything else is a bug, either in code or in
> TestBed.
>
This is not true, on several layers:

1) The string is logged when all-am target is done. The check target,
among others, is build _after_ all-am. You can grep raw Makefile for
all-am to see the dependencies.

2) The string is logged when make fails if make is told to ignore
errors. This does not happen in the build-test context (by default), but
often happens during developement, when I ran "make -k" to get more
errors than one. It is rather confusing to see the "Build Successful"
message when there are hundreds of errors above it.

3) "Make" is designed to exit with an error when there is an error. We
should not be re-implementing that logic. The problems with the current
script and the above caveats are all cases in point.

Overall, it seems strange to me to reject the change that uses the
correct interface to detect build errors while the current code is using
a half-broken hack.

>> The build is still considered failed if error strings are found
>> in the log.
> More Major Warning Bells are going off in my head on that Alex.
> The first design attempt used this enumerating-badness method. Far too
> many false-positives were getting through. I'd rather face the odd
> false-negative like this than hobble the testing.
>
I am fine with deleting the code that greps for errors. I just wanted to
be as conservative as I could when fixing the bigger problem. Note that
my change does not make the error grepping code better or worse so I am
not sure why you are talking about bells going off.

Should I submit a revised patch that deletes the old error-grepping code?

> Hmm, on that 'make all check distcheck'....
> Do you know if doing that is faster than make all && make check && make
> distcheck? Maybe we should be doing that to speed things up a little.
>
Marginally faster.

Alex.
Received on Mon Mar 09 2009 - 23:01:14 MDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Mar 11 2009 - 12:00:03 MDT