Hey!
Can't we add tests to the regular tree, and disable them with a onig flag or something. This is getting retarded, and we must be the only project separating tests and runtime in their tree. Every tester should just build them (not speaking about developers...), and we include them in nightly builds. For me this separation is just pointless...
regards. Jérôme
Le 07/03/2012 22:46, jgardou@svn.reactos.org a écrit :
Author: jgardou Date: Wed Mar 7 21:46:15 2012 New Revision: 56082
URL: http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos?rev=56082&view=rev Log: [DAMN_IT]
- addendum to r56081
Modified: trunk/rostests/apitests/w32kdll/w32kdll_2k3sp2/CMakeLists.txt trunk/rostests/apitests/w32kdll/w32kdll_ros/CMakeLists.txt trunk/rostests/apitests/w32kdll/w32kdll_vista/CMakeLists.txt trunk/rostests/apitests/w32kdll/w32kdll_xpsp2/CMakeLists.txt
Modified: trunk/rostests/apitests/w32kdll/w32kdll_2k3sp2/CMakeLists.txt URL: http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos/trunk/rostests/apitests/w32kdll/w32kdll_2... ============================================================================== --- trunk/rostests/apitests/w32kdll/w32kdll_2k3sp2/CMakeLists.txt [iso-8859-1] (original) +++ trunk/rostests/apitests/w32kdll/w32kdll_2k3sp2/CMakeLists.txt [iso-8859-1] Wed Mar 7 21:46:15 2012 @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
-spec2def(w32kdll_2k3sp2.dll w32kdll_2k3sp2.spec) +spec2def(w32kdll_2k3sp2.dll w32kdll_2k3sp2.spec ADD_IMPORTLIB)
add_library(w32kdll_2k3sp2 SHARED main.c @@ -9,4 +9,3 @@ set_entrypoint(w32kdll_2k3sp2 0)
add_dependencies(w32kdll_2k3sp2 psdk ) -add_importlib_target(w32kdll_2k3sp2.spec w32kdll_2k3sp2.dll)
Modified: trunk/rostests/apitests/w32kdll/w32kdll_ros/CMakeLists.txt URL: http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos/trunk/rostests/apitests/w32kdll/w32kdll_r... ============================================================================== --- trunk/rostests/apitests/w32kdll/w32kdll_ros/CMakeLists.txt [iso-8859-1] (original) +++ trunk/rostests/apitests/w32kdll/w32kdll_ros/CMakeLists.txt [iso-8859-1] Wed Mar 7 21:46:15 2012 @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
-spec2def(w32kdll_ros.dll w32kdll_ros.spec) +spec2def(w32kdll_ros.dll w32kdll_ros.spec ADD_IMPORTLIB)
add_library(w32kdll_ros SHARED main.c @@ -10,4 +10,3 @@ target_link_libraries(w32kdll_ros win32ksys)
add_dependencies(w32kdll_ros psdk) -add_importlib_target(w32kdll_ros.spec w32kdll_ros.dll)
Modified: trunk/rostests/apitests/w32kdll/w32kdll_vista/CMakeLists.txt URL: http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos/trunk/rostests/apitests/w32kdll/w32kdll_v... ============================================================================== --- trunk/rostests/apitests/w32kdll/w32kdll_vista/CMakeLists.txt [iso-8859-1] (original) +++ trunk/rostests/apitests/w32kdll/w32kdll_vista/CMakeLists.txt [iso-8859-1] Wed Mar 7 21:46:15 2012 @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
-spec2def(w32kdll_dll.spec w32kdll_vista.spec) +spec2def(w32kdll_vista.spec w32kdll_vista.spec ADD_IMPORTLIB)
add_library(w32kdll_vista SHARED main.c @@ -8,4 +8,3 @@ set_entrypoint(w32kdll_vista 0)
add_dependencies(w32kdll_vista psdk ) -add_importlib_target(w32kdll_vista.spec w32kdll_dll.spec)
Modified: trunk/rostests/apitests/w32kdll/w32kdll_xpsp2/CMakeLists.txt URL: http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos/trunk/rostests/apitests/w32kdll/w32kdll_x... ============================================================================== --- trunk/rostests/apitests/w32kdll/w32kdll_xpsp2/CMakeLists.txt [iso-8859-1] (original) +++ trunk/rostests/apitests/w32kdll/w32kdll_xpsp2/CMakeLists.txt [iso-8859-1] Wed Mar 7 21:46:15 2012 @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -spec2def(w32kdll_xpsp2.dll w32kdll_xpsp2.spec) +spec2def(w32kdll_xpsp2.dll w32kdll_xpsp2.spec ADD_IMPORTLIB)
add_library(w32kdll_xpsp2 SHARED main.c @@ -6,5 +6,4 @@ ${CMAKE_CURRENT_BINARY_DIR}/w32kdll_xpsp2.def) set_entrypoint(w32kdll_xpsp2 0)
-add_dependencies(w32kdll_xpsp2 psdk ) -add_importlib_target(w32kdll_xpsp2.spec w32kdll_xpsp2.dll) +add_dependencies(w32kdll_xpsp2 psdk)
I totally agree, every module should have a ./test folder containing all related tests. This was something I wanted to do with the proposed tree restructure (which I still think should be pushed) The need to save bandwidth and disk space is a thing of the past.
-----Original Message----- From: ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org [mailto:ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org] On Behalf Of Jérôme Gardou Sent: 07 March 2012 21:51 To: ros-dev@reactos.org Subject: Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [jgardou] 56082: [DAMN_IT] - addendum to r56081
Hey!
Can't we add tests to the regular tree, and disable them with a onig flag or something. This is getting retarded, and we must be the only project separating tests and runtime in their tree. Every tester should just build them (not speaking about developers...), and we include them in nightly builds. For me this separation is just pointless...
regards. Jérôme
Le 07/03/2012 22:46, jgardou@svn.reactos.org a écrit :
Author: jgardou Date: Wed Mar 7 21:46:15 2012 New Revision: 56082
URL: http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos?rev=56082&view=rev Log: [DAMN_IT]
- addendum to r56081
Modified: trunk/rostests/apitests/w32kdll/w32kdll_2k3sp2/CMakeLists.txt trunk/rostests/apitests/w32kdll/w32kdll_ros/CMakeLists.txt trunk/rostests/apitests/w32kdll/w32kdll_vista/CMakeLists.txt trunk/rostests/apitests/w32kdll/w32kdll_xpsp2/CMakeLists.txt
Modified: trunk/rostests/apitests/w32kdll/w32kdll_2k3sp2/CMakeLists.txt URL: http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos/trunk/rostests/apitests/w32kdll/w32kdll_2... ============================================================================== --- trunk/rostests/apitests/w32kdll/w32kdll_2k3sp2/CMakeLists.txt [iso-8859-1] (original) +++ trunk/rostests/apitests/w32kdll/w32kdll_2k3sp2/CMakeLists.txt [iso-8859-1] Wed Mar 7 21:46:15 2012 @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
-spec2def(w32kdll_2k3sp2.dll w32kdll_2k3sp2.spec) +spec2def(w32kdll_2k3sp2.dll w32kdll_2k3sp2.spec ADD_IMPORTLIB)
add_library(w32kdll_2k3sp2 SHARED main.c @@ -9,4 +9,3 @@ set_entrypoint(w32kdll_2k3sp2 0)
add_dependencies(w32kdll_2k3sp2 psdk ) -add_importlib_target(w32kdll_2k3sp2.spec w32kdll_2k3sp2.dll)
Modified: trunk/rostests/apitests/w32kdll/w32kdll_ros/CMakeLists.txt URL: http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos/trunk/rostests/apitests/w32kdll/w32kdll_r... ============================================================================== --- trunk/rostests/apitests/w32kdll/w32kdll_ros/CMakeLists.txt [iso-8859-1] (original) +++ trunk/rostests/apitests/w32kdll/w32kdll_ros/CMakeLists.txt [iso-8859-1] Wed Mar 7 21:46:15 2012 @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
-spec2def(w32kdll_ros.dll w32kdll_ros.spec) +spec2def(w32kdll_ros.dll w32kdll_ros.spec ADD_IMPORTLIB)
add_library(w32kdll_ros SHARED main.c @@ -10,4 +10,3 @@ target_link_libraries(w32kdll_ros win32ksys)
add_dependencies(w32kdll_ros psdk) -add_importlib_target(w32kdll_ros.spec w32kdll_ros.dll)
Modified: trunk/rostests/apitests/w32kdll/w32kdll_vista/CMakeLists.txt URL: http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos/trunk/rostests/apitests/w32kdll/w32kdll_v... ============================================================================== --- trunk/rostests/apitests/w32kdll/w32kdll_vista/CMakeLists.txt [iso-8859-1] (original) +++ trunk/rostests/apitests/w32kdll/w32kdll_vista/CMakeLists.txt [iso-8859-1] Wed Mar 7 21:46:15 2012 @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
-spec2def(w32kdll_dll.spec w32kdll_vista.spec) +spec2def(w32kdll_vista.spec w32kdll_vista.spec ADD_IMPORTLIB)
add_library(w32kdll_vista SHARED main.c @@ -8,4 +8,3 @@ set_entrypoint(w32kdll_vista 0)
add_dependencies(w32kdll_vista psdk ) -add_importlib_target(w32kdll_vista.spec w32kdll_dll.spec)
Modified: trunk/rostests/apitests/w32kdll/w32kdll_xpsp2/CMakeLists.txt URL: http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos/trunk/rostests/apitests/w32kdll/w32kdll_x... ============================================================================== --- trunk/rostests/apitests/w32kdll/w32kdll_xpsp2/CMakeLists.txt [iso-8859-1] (original) +++ trunk/rostests/apitests/w32kdll/w32kdll_xpsp2/CMakeLists.txt [iso-8859-1] Wed Mar 7 21:46:15 2012 @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -spec2def(w32kdll_xpsp2.dll w32kdll_xpsp2.spec) +spec2def(w32kdll_xpsp2.dll w32kdll_xpsp2.spec ADD_IMPORTLIB)
add_library(w32kdll_xpsp2 SHARED main.c @@ -6,5 +6,4 @@ ${CMAKE_CURRENT_BINARY_DIR}/w32kdll_xpsp2.def) set_entrypoint(w32kdll_xpsp2 0)
-add_dependencies(w32kdll_xpsp2 psdk ) -add_importlib_target(w32kdll_xpsp2.spec w32kdll_xpsp2.dll) +add_dependencies(w32kdll_xpsp2 psdk)
_______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Since my builds already contain them, i fully agree, since it will make stuff a lot easier for me.
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 10:06 PM, Ged Murphy wrote:
I totally agree, every module should have a ./test folder containing all related tests. This was something I wanted to do with the proposed tree restructure (which I still think should be pushed) The need to save bandwidth and disk space is a thing of the past.
-----Original Message----- From: ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org [mailto:ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org] On Behalf Of Jérôme Gardou Sent: 07 March 2012 21:51 To: ros-dev@reactos.org Subject: Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [jgardou] 56082: [DAMN_IT] - addendum to r56081
Hey!
Can't we add tests to the regular tree, and disable them with a onig flag or something. This is getting retarded, and we must be the only project separating tests and runtime in their tree. Every tester should just build them (not speaking about developers...), and we include them in nightly builds. For me this separation is just pointless...
regards. Jérôme
Ged Murphy gedmurphy.maillists@gmail.com wrote:
I totally agree, every module should have a ./test folder containing all related tests.
Full ACK.
The need to save bandwidth and disk space is a thing of the past.
Even more ACK! Thinking about disk space too much would just be another self-made obstacle in my opinion, and we already have enough of them.
Cheers,
Colin
Am I the only one against that? Tests are tests, not reactos. Why do I need to have another bazillion files in my source tree that I don't need or want? I have ONE checkout of rostests, but a dozen checkouts of reactos. For amd64 work I even disabled build of a lot of stuff that was pointless. Now even more stuff spread thoughout the whole tree? Possibly even built by default? Deleting a full reactos checkout is already slow enough. Also every commit to rostetsts is a possible build breaker and can cause massive rebuilds. Configure time will also increase. I would rather prefer to make it even more modular, instead of mixing stuff even more.
-1
On 08.03.2012 4:27, Timo Kreuzer wrote:
Am I the only one against that? Tests are tests, not reactos. Why do I need to have another bazillion files in my source tree that I don't need or want? I have ONE checkout of rostests, but a dozen checkouts of reactos. For amd64 work I even disabled build of a lot of stuff that was pointless. Now even more stuff spread thoughout the whole tree? Possibly even built by default? Deleting a full reactos checkout is already slow enough. Also every commit to rostetsts is a possible build breaker and can cause massive rebuilds. Configure time will also increase. I would rather prefer to make it even more modular, instead of mixing stuff even more.
-1
Good, so I'm not the only one, and (surprise! :)) I agree with Timo on this one! Indeed, I have one tests set in the main tree and many working copies which don't need to waste time building same stuff.
I'm all for modularity too.
But as I said in another message, it would be good to have a whole picture, maybe there are some ground-breaking arguments which will make us convinced.
WBR, Aleksey.
Although I am not strictly against it, Timo raises some valid points.
Also if we do this, what would the default build option be?
(neutral/slightly skeptic about this)
K.
Dne 8.3.2012 1:27, Timo Kreuzer napsal(a):
Am I the only one against that? Tests are tests, not reactos. Why do I need to have another bazillion files in my source tree that I don't need or want? I have ONE checkout of rostests, but a dozen checkouts of reactos. For amd64 work I even disabled build of a lot of stuff that was pointless. Now even more stuff spread thoughout the whole tree? Possibly even built by default? Deleting a full reactos checkout is already slow enough. Also every commit to rostetsts is a possible build breaker and can cause massive rebuilds. Configure time will also increase. I would rather prefer to make it even more modular, instead of mixing stuff even more.
-1
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
I fully agree with Timo. We don't need to have useless files in tree. Remember we recently deleted stuff from the main tree for the same reasons : space used and download time.
We do need tests, they are critical, but not in every reactos checkout. I am for making tests a complete separated project, which would lower build times even more. Kind regards,
Sylvain Petreolle
De : Timo Kreuzer timo.kreuzer@web.de À : ReactOS Development List ros-dev@reactos.org Envoyé le : Jeudi 8 mars 2012 1h27 Objet : Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [jgardou] 56082: [DAMN_IT] - addendum to r56081
Am I the only one against that? Tests are tests, not reactos. Why do I need to have another bazillion files in my source tree that I don't need or want? I have ONE checkout of rostests, but a dozen checkouts of reactos. For amd64 work I even disabled build of a lot of stuff that was pointless. Now even more stuff spread thoughout the whole tree? Possibly even built by default? Deleting a full reactos checkout is already slow enough. Also every commit to rostetsts is a possible build breaker and can cause massive rebuilds. Configure time will also increase. I would rather prefer to make it even more modular, instead of mixing stuff even more.
-1
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
+1 for keeping rostests separate +1 for even more modularity
also i wish we would use/exploit the svn externals feature whenever possible instead of importing 3rd party code into our repo
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Sylvain Petreolle spetreolle@yahoo.fr wrote:
I fully agree with Timo. We don't need to have useless files in tree. Remember we recently deleted stuff from the main tree for the same reasons : space used and download time.
We do need tests, they are critical, but not in every reactos checkout. I am for making tests a complete separated project, which would lower build times even more.
Kind regards, Sylvain Petreolle
De : Timo Kreuzer timo.kreuzer@web.de À : ReactOS Development List ros-dev@reactos.org Envoyé le : Jeudi 8 mars 2012 1h27 Objet : Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [jgardou] 56082: [DAMN_IT] - addendum to r56081
Am I the only one against that? Tests are tests, not reactos. Why do I need to have another bazillion files in my source tree that I don't need or want? I have ONE checkout of rostests, but a dozen checkouts of reactos. For amd64 work I even disabled build of a lot of stuff that was pointless. Now even more stuff spread thoughout the whole tree? Possibly even built by default? Deleting a full reactos checkout is already slow enough. Also every commit to rostetsts is a possible build breaker and can cause massive rebuilds. Configure time will also increase. I would rather prefer to make it even more modular, instead of mixing stuff even more.
-1
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
We don't need to have useless files in tree.
Useless files? They're arguably the most important files in the tree.
Working on the codebase should be done directly with the tests for that area. The modules and tests are directly related and shouldn't be separated. It's like separating twins. Unfortunately, most people checkout trunk and not the tests, leaving testing to the build machines.
I'm guessing that people also write lots of test apps to test certain functionality of a particular area. These never get committed because there's nowhere to commit them, or lost if they do (remember the lena app we used for alphablending?) Having a ./tests folder will give people somewhere to drop this kind of thing and the chance to write bespoke tests outside of the winetest framework.
Obviously the tests shouldn't be compiled under the basic build, instead have a flag in the root makefile so they can be compiled as desired. This would mean with the flag off everything would build as it does now. With the flag on, 'make' would build reactos + tests. 'make module' would build the module + its specific tests.
The source for all tests comes to 24MB. It's not gonna flood your bandwidth or fill your hard disk.
-----Original Message----- From: ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org [mailto:ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org] On Behalf Of Samuel Serapión Sent: 08 March 2012 14:35 To: Sylvain Petreolle; ReactOS Development List Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Re : [ros-diffs] [jgardou] 56082: [DAMN_IT] - addendum to r56081
+1 for keeping rostests separate +1 for even more modularity
also i wish we would use/exploit the svn externals feature whenever possible instead of importing 3rd party code into our repo
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Sylvain Petreolle spetreolle@yahoo.fr wrote:
I fully agree with Timo. We don't need to have useless files in tree. Remember we recently deleted stuff from the main tree for the same reasons : space used and download time.
We do need tests, they are critical, but not in every reactos checkout. I am for making tests a complete separated project, which would lower build times even more.
Kind regards, Sylvain Petreolle
De : Timo Kreuzer timo.kreuzer@web.de À : ReactOS Development List ros-dev@reactos.org Envoyé le : Jeudi 8 mars 2012 1h27 Objet : Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [jgardou] 56082: [DAMN_IT] - addendum to r56081
Am I the only one against that? Tests are tests, not reactos. Why do I need to have another bazillion files in my source tree that I don't need or want? I have ONE checkout of rostests, but a dozen checkouts of reactos. For amd64 work I even disabled build of a lot of stuff that was pointless. Now even more stuff spread thoughout the whole tree? Possibly even built by default? Deleting a full reactos checkout is already slow enough. Also every commit to rostetsts is a possible build breaker and can cause massive rebuilds. Configure time will also increase. I would rather prefer to make it even more modular, instead of mixing stuff even more.
-1
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
_______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Dne 8.3.2012 16:29, Ged Murphy napsal(a):
Unfortunately, most people checkout trunk and not the tests, leaving
testing to the build machines.
Well that's kinda the purpose of the testbot, to do the testing for you.
I'm guessing that people also write lots of test apps to test certain
functionality of a particular area. These never get committed because there's nowhere to commit them
Nowhere to commit them? ehm.. rostests? So for example you want to stuff everything that's in dibtests to the gdi32 folder? And have every module's ./test folder filled with unmaintained half finished tests?
or lost if they do (remember the lena app we used for alphablending?)
I'm no expert and even I managed to find and build dibtests, I think others can too.
We can prevent the tests from being lost if we clean up and restructure the rostests folder a bit. It's in a terrible shape now, I give you that.
The source for all tests comes to 24MB. It's not gonna flood your
bandwidth or fill your hard disk.
Also consider people with slower internet connection. Ever tried doing a checkout on GPRS? :-)
To be absolutely clear: I don't per se oppose the idea to have tests in corresponding folders, provided they are maintained and updated (winetests). But I am strongly against merging everything from rostests just for the sake of merging (because "these things belong togehter").
Well that's kinda the purpose of the testbot, to do the testing for you.
No, the purpose of the testbot is to run all tests in a controlled environment and catch anything devs may miss. Devs should be using the tests directly to develop reactos. Relying on testbot to test your code and catch errors is very bad practice.
So for example you want to stuff everything that's in dibtests to the
gdi32 folder? Trust you to pick that one, dibtests is one of the few tests which doesn't fall into a child category. However with the correct tree structure, dibtests would be under a parent ./tests folder in the 'win32core' directory http://www.reactos.org/wiki/Techwiki:File_Layout
And have every module's ./test folder filled with unmaintained half
finished tests? I didn't mention half finished tests. I wouldn't expect the folder to fill up with bespoke tests, it's just a useful place if ever a neat test is written.
Also consider people with slower internet connection. Ever tried doing a
checkout on GPRS? :-) This is 2012, you can't hold the project back in case someone might still be using dialup. Technology moves forwards. Also, why would you checkout over GPRS? Are you trying to suggest people thether to their mobile phones to checkout reactos?
However with the correct tree structure, dibtests would be under a parent ./tests folder in the 'win32core' directory http://www.reactos.org/wiki/Techwiki:File_Layout
Now that's something completely different. But we aren't there yet.
And have every module's ./test folder filled with unmaintained half
finished tests? I didn't mention half finished tests. I wouldn't expect the folder to fill up with bespoke tests, it's just a useful place if ever a neat test is written.
Rostests cleanup would solve this too. Let's get rostests in shape first and discuss this again later.
This is 2012, you can't hold the project back in case someone might still be using dialup. Technology moves forwards. Also, why would you checkout over GPRS? Are you trying to suggest people thether to their mobile phones to checkout reactos?
Just a side note: had to do this 3x this year and believe me every byte counts ;-) live is hard when you're out of town on "vaccation".
Uh, isn't Eric still stuck with a really bad internet connection?
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Ged Murphy gedmurphy.maillists@gmail.com wrote:
Well that's kinda the purpose of the testbot, to do the testing for you.
No, the purpose of the testbot is to run all tests in a controlled environment and catch anything devs may miss. Devs should be using the tests directly to develop reactos. Relying on testbot to test your code and catch errors is very bad practice.
So for example you want to stuff everything that's in dibtests to the
gdi32 folder? Trust you to pick that one, dibtests is one of the few tests which doesn't fall into a child category. However with the correct tree structure, dibtests would be under a parent ./tests folder in the 'win32core' directory http://www.reactos.org/wiki/Techwiki:File_Layout
And have every module's ./test folder filled with unmaintained half
finished tests? I didn't mention half finished tests. I wouldn't expect the folder to fill up with bespoke tests, it's just a useful place if ever a neat test is written.
Also consider people with slower internet connection. Ever tried doing a
checkout on GPRS? :-) This is 2012, you can't hold the project back in case someone might still be using dialup. Technology moves forwards. Also, why would you checkout over GPRS? Are you trying to suggest people thether to their mobile phones to checkout reactos?
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
On 08.03.2012 20:03, Kamil Hornicek wrote:
I don't per se oppose the idea to have tests in corresponding folders, provided they are maintained and updated (winetests). But I am strongly against merging everything from rostests just for the sake of merging (because "these things belong togehter").
I explained these concerns when the initial tree restructure discussion (flamewar) came up. Sometimes, in some cases, it's reasonable, sometimes it's not.
Modularity should be a big advantage, and what I see so far is that the only reason was that "these things belong together". (I won't comment on the "nowhere to commit" fun, but really if someone doesn't care to checkout rostests and commit there, then something is wrong with that particular developer, not the development methods).
Or ACKing a definitive statement, like "every module should have a ./test folder containing all related tests.". I reread the discussion, and so far the only technical reason was from Caemyr, which suggests that it makes the testing process(?) simpler.
What I highly dislike in any project is doing something just for the sake of doing something. Things should be done to actually improve the situation and solve specific problems. Otherwise we will waste years restructuring trees, changing version control system or whatever else. There is the kernel, there is the OS - fix it, make it usable, profit.
WBR, Aleksey.
I didn't say tests are useless(!), but critical.
Instead of having them in the regular checkout, build them as a separate project. This will lower build/configure time, and leave it for OS, libraries, drivers and apps.
Kind regards, Sylvain Petreolle
De : Ged Murphy gedmurphy.maillists@gmail.com À : 'ReactOS Development List' ros-dev@reactos.org Envoyé le : Jeudi 8 mars 2012 16h29 Objet : Re: [ros-dev] Re : [ros-diffs] [jgardou] 56082: [DAMN_IT] - addendum to r56081
We don't need to have useless files in tree.
Useless files? They're arguably the most important files in the tree.
Working on the codebase should be done directly with the tests for that area. The modules and tests are directly related and shouldn't be separated. It's like separating twins. Unfortunately, most people checkout trunk and not the tests, leaving testing to the build machines.
I'm guessing that people also write lots of test apps to test certain functionality of a particular area. These never get committed because there's nowhere to commit them, or lost if they do (remember the lena app we used for alphablending?) Having a ./tests folder will give people somewhere to drop this kind of thing and the chance to write bespoke tests outside of the winetest framework.
Obviously the tests shouldn't be compiled under the basic build, instead have a flag in the root makefile so they can be compiled as desired. This would mean with the flag off everything would build as it does now. With the flag on, 'make' would build reactos + tests. 'make module' would build the module + its specific tests.
The source for all tests comes to 24MB. It's not gonna flood your bandwidth or fill your hard disk.
-----Original Message----- From: ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org [mailto:ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org] On Behalf Of Samuel Serapión Sent: 08 March 2012 14:35 To: Sylvain Petreolle; ReactOS Development List Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Re : [ros-diffs] [jgardou] 56082: [DAMN_IT] - addendum to r56081
+1 for keeping rostests separate +1 for even more modularity
also i wish we would use/exploit the svn externals feature whenever possible instead of importing 3rd party code into our repo
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Sylvain Petreolle spetreolle@yahoo.fr wrote:
I fully agree with Timo. We don't need to have useless files in tree. Remember we recently deleted stuff from the main tree for the same reasons : space used and download time.
We do need tests, they are critical, but not in every reactos checkout. I am for making tests a complete separated project, which would lower build times even more.
Kind regards, Sylvain Petreolle
De : Timo Kreuzer timo.kreuzer@web.de À : ReactOS Development List ros-dev@reactos.org Envoyé le : Jeudi 8 mars 2012 1h27 Objet : Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [jgardou] 56082: [DAMN_IT] - addendum to r56081
Am I the only one against that? Tests are tests, not reactos. Why do I need to have another bazillion files in my source tree that I don't need or want? I have ONE checkout of rostests, but a dozen checkouts of reactos. For amd64 work I even disabled build of a lot of stuff that was pointless. Now even more stuff spread thoughout the whole tree? Possibly even built by default? Deleting a full reactos checkout is already slow enough. Also every commit to rostetsts is a possible build breaker and can cause massive rebuilds. Configure time will also increase. I would rather prefer to make it even more modular, instead of mixing stuff even more.
-1
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Even better... Perhaps you guys will notice build/test brekages when it starts to affect you as well, not only the builders.
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012, at 01:27 AM, Timo Kreuzer wrote:
Also every commit to rostetsts is a possible build breaker and can cause massive rebuilds.
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Any comments *against* this? To have a full picture of what's good and bad. Disk space (huh? but well, after the flooding HDDs cost more) noted; worse full-text search performance maybe;
On 08.03.2012 3:29, Colin Finck wrote:
Ged Murphy gedmurphy.maillists@gmail.com wrote:
I totally agree, every module should have a ./test folder containing all related tests.
Full ACK.
The need to save bandwidth and disk space is a thing of the past.
Even more ACK! Thinking about disk space too much would just be another self-made obstacle in my opinion, and we already have enough of them.
Le 07/03/2012 22:50, Jérôme Gardou a écrit :
Hey!
Can't we add tests to the regular tree, and disable them with a onig flag or something. This is getting retarded, and we must be the only project separating tests and runtime in their tree. Every tester should just build them (not speaking about developers...), and we include them in nightly builds. For me this separation is just pointless...
regards. Jérôme
In "onig flag", you should read "config flag"...
-
Aleksey Bragin -
caemyr＠myopera.com -
Colin Finck -
Ged Murphy -
Jérôme Gardou -
Kamil Hornicek -
Samuel Serapión -
Sylvain Petreolle -
Timo Kreuzer -
Zachary Gorden