From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pl1-f181.google.com (mail-pl1-f181.google.com [209.85.214.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B59CF2D606 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2024 23:54:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="xWhVURyk" Received: by mail-pl1-f181.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1d3ec3db764so5541855ad.2 for ; Thu, 04 Jan 2024 15:54:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20230601; t=1704412457; x=1705017257; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:mail-followup-to:message-id:subject:cc:to :from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=J3wzi32SgaVuj8CklCK8iI+7u7N4ByhvzEWAWayEKo8=; b=xWhVURykvEUW7Z/rzVIuJmE4PMYcQ16JVQIuAPPpC7DY2HkT9UVC5470bIkf+BvhV7 0bv/NEB9mjfCcYhXd+GJsiriiTjHLOgYZ2HU09kI2kipz5OYvCihFDEJDDan/07o9KKK iTEbSDU4QhSJKkQpiXuzepqiICdTuh1sW4/xXujDo4ZweOVfEVpIHio3/ipMdoJCKO/a NCzi5pg5XXrsq6iJk30ErYUuMzGZTQdV1GIzPSNWWHPPeOwa9/OI9l6aZY0d6am4VXjo V2aQv3fPrpPbK5EHPZA2AY72wu0euex4kZ9e1TL3MFr6mIugwKU+/5fg4HqoVGAXJML0 R1LA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1704412457; x=1705017257; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:mail-followup-to:message-id:subject:cc:to :from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=J3wzi32SgaVuj8CklCK8iI+7u7N4ByhvzEWAWayEKo8=; b=UwOWQwsqZ9TzIFfLHFxEUdMfQhp93hrvkcmPAw5ouehtYjx9glcjJjvZ2l6jzm/AEN bh+vCjxiqWpuMW4Je4NtjlwaPYpn1dLtnD5llOCAXuB8SNJZJ1tGVb2f71bOtRdVFAmx KfOcmE/daWUXOasNmR6fJYfecW1GS20a/JkT4E0eTyhHpUXv3GuQuUd8ta23s5E2cxgH aWQB7U3S+uB+oLyre5/N7U65tMShwFZVievm4C838GG5SCjYLOM5SX+DUV1bryfX0ews lwfPqHVG59Qch8wZaDwQWsi+yWBu0+H+/qpa7t2Bx74FUEGUnXgjEnsKn+ENUEuxNDhj iiWA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yy2Q7TRANiznbPFVgyKG/OaBcGUnpiouRWUEkPg4fb9gi7+V7ki 4FJZo4acUmtxneOXK6PIWWjgCk++FZKg X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHYDST5ZtQU5TKM4OG6kOV6tKu7/sPzlhK+Qw4GZ3HpkRXrQjJAlNEWzEQA4IUtn7rZlF/mCA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:e5c6:b0:1d4:2b6d:d745 with SMTP id u6-20020a170902e5c600b001d42b6dd745mr1354943plf.56.1704412456737; Thu, 04 Jan 2024 15:54:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from google.com ([2620:15c:2d3:204:a7e4:a1c4:6ce:d64]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y9-20020a17090322c900b001d38a7e6a30sm171904plg.70.2024.01.04.15.54.15 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 04 Jan 2024 15:54:16 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2024 15:54:11 -0800 From: Josh Steadmon To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: Jeff King , Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget , Phillip Wood , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Feasibility of folding `unit-tests` into `make test`, was Re: [PATCH] ci: avoid running the test suite _twice_ Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: Josh Steadmon , Johannes Schindelin , Jeff King , Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget , Phillip Wood , git@vger.kernel.org References: <20231113184909.GB3838361@coredump.intra.peff.net> <850ea42c-f103-68d5-896b-9120e2628686@gmx.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <850ea42c-f103-68d5-896b-9120e2628686@gmx.de> On 2023.11.16 09:42, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi Josh, > > On Wed, 15 Nov 2023, Josh Steadmon wrote: [snip] > > If I was forced to pick a way to get everything under one process, I'd > > lean towards autogenerating individual shell script wrappers for each > > unit test. But I'm open to discussion, especially if people have other > > approaches I haven't thought of. > > One alternative would be to avoid running the unit tests via `prove` in > the first place. > > For example, we could use the helper from be5d88e11280 (test-tool > run-command: learn to run (parts of) the testsuite, 2019-10-04) [*1*]. It > would probably need a few improvements, but certainly no wizardry nor > witchcraft would be required. It would also help on Windows, where running > a simple test helper written in C is vastly faster than running a complex > Perl script (which `prove` is). > > Ciao, > Johannes > > Footnote *1*: I had always wanted to improve that test helper to the point > where it could replace our use of `prove`, at least on Windows. It seems, > however, that as of 4c2c38e800f3 (ci: modification of main.yml to use > cmake for vs-build job, 2020-06-26) we do not use the helper at all > anymore. Hopefully it can still be useful. 🤞 Sorry for the silence on this topic; the holidays plus some family illnesses kept me away from the list for a while. I have a working implementation of this. I plan on cleaning it up a bit and sending it as an RFC series either tomorrow or next week. Thank you for the suggestion!