From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id 14133E007B5; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 12:37:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no * trust * [208.80.206.84 listed in list.dnswl.org] Received: from smtp684.redcondor.net (smtp684.redcondor.net [208.80.206.84]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3053E0030B for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 12:37:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from astoria.ccjclearline.com ([64.235.106.9]) by smtp684.redcondor.net ({700db0a8-6fb7-4c8b-9b2a-6812225182d8}) via TCP (outbound) with ESMTPS id 20140805193736018 for ; Tue, 05 Aug 2014 19:37:36 +0000 X-RC-FROM: X-RC-RCPT: Received: from [99.240.204.5] (port=48055 helo=crashcourse.ca) by astoria.ccjclearline.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XEkY7-0000YM-3E; Tue, 05 Aug 2014 15:37:31 -0400 Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 15:37:27 -0400 (EDT) From: "Robert P. J. Day" X-X-Sender: rpjday@localhost To: Richard Purdie In-Reply-To: <1407232532.6981.76.camel@ted> Message-ID: References: <1407232532.6981.76.camel@ted> User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (LFD 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - astoria.ccjclearline.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - yoctoproject.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - crashcourse.ca X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-MAG-OUTBOUND: ccj.redcondor.net@64.235.106.9/32 Cc: Yocto discussion list Subject: Re: i assume "ptest" is an all-or-nothing selection, yes? X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 19:37:45 -0000 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 5 Aug 2014, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Tue, 2014-08-05 at 05:40 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > dev manual, section 5.13.6, clearly implies that ptest is selected > > either across your build or not at all -- i see no suggestion that you > > can enable it with, say, package overrides, correct? > > Correct. i thought as much, just wanted to make sure. and while that might be obvious to many people, i think a short note at the beginning of that section wouldn't hurt, but a couple more questions about ptest so i can make some adjustments all at once, based on what's written here: http://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/current/dev-manual/dev-manual.html#testing-packages-with-ptest toward the end of that section, there is the claim: "However, you still must add a do_compile_ptest function to build the test suite. Add a function similar to the following to your recipe: do_compile_ptest() { oe_runmake buildtest-TESTS } well, not really ... i did some perusing and there are numerous ptest-enabled recipes that don't define their own do_compile_ptest() routine, obviously because the standard compile step handles the compilation of the test code. and, finally, there's this last claim: "The ptest class automatically copies the file run-ptest to the target and then runs make install-ptest to run the tests. If this is not enough, you need to create a do_install_ptest function and make sure it gets called after the "make install-ptest" completes." couple things there. rather than define a do_install_ptest() routine, i notice a number of recipes simply patch their Makefile to add the appropriate install-ptest: target, so if one is clever enough to write the proper Makefile target, one could have a ptest-enabled recipe with no definition whatsoever of *any* of the do_*_ptest() routines. oh, and about that last claim: "If this is not enough, you need to create a do_install_ptest function and make sure it gets called after the "make install-ptest" completes." don't know what you mean by "make sure it gets called ..." since the code in ptest.bbclass: if grep -q install-ptest: Makefile; then oe_runmake DESTDIR=${D}${PTEST_PATH} install-ptest fi do_install_ptest pretty much guarantees that it will be called -- there is no need for the developer to "make sure" of it, yes? anyway, i think i have a handle on this. any thoughts on the above? rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday ========================================================================