Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [jgardou] 56082: [DAMN_IT] - addendum to r56081

[Jérôme Gardou]

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(a)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_…
>  ==============================================================================
>  --- 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_…
>  ==============================================================================
>  --- 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_…
>  ==============================================================================
>  --- 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_…
>  ==============================================================================
>  --- 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)
>
>

[Ged Murphy]

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(a)reactos.org [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Jérôme
Gardou
Sent: 07 March 2012 21:51
To: ros-dev(a)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(a)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_…
>  ==============================================================================
>  --- 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_…
>  ==============================================================================
>  --- 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_…
>  ==============================================================================
>  --- 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_…
>  ==============================================================================
>  --- 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(a)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(a)reactos.org [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>  Behalf Of Jérôme Gardou
>  Sent: 07 March 2012 21:51
>  To: ros-dev(a)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 
-- 
With best regards
Caemyr

[Colin Finck]

Ged Murphy <gedmurphy.maillists(a)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

[Timo Kreuzer]

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

[Aleksey Bragin]

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.

[Kamil Hornicek]

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(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Sylvain Petreolle]

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(a)web.de>
> À : ReactOS Development List <ros-dev(a)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(a)reactos.org
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
>
>

[Samuel Serapión]

+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(a)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(a)web.de>
>  À : ReactOS Development List <ros-dev(a)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(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Ged Murphy]

>   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(a)reactos.org [mailto:[e-mail]] 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(a)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(a)web.de>
> À : ReactOS Development List <ros-dev(a)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(a)reactos.org
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ros-dev mailing list
> Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Kamil Hornicek]

>  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").

[Ged Murphy]

>   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?

[Kamil Hornicek]

>   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".

[Zachary Gorden]

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(a)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(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Aleksey Bragin]

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.

[Sylvain Petreolle]

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(a)gmail.com>
> À : 'ReactOS Development List' <ros-dev(a)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(a)reactos.org [mailto:[e-mail]] 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(a)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(a)web.de>
> > À : ReactOS Development List <ros-dev(a)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(a)reactos.org
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ros-dev mailing list
> Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ros-dev mailing list
> Ros-dev(a)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(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>   

-- 
With best regards
Caemyr

[Aleksey Bragin]

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(a)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.

[Jérôme Gardou]

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"...