From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 18:01:05 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 5/7] support/testing: add test of BR2_CCACHE with an external toolchain In-Reply-To: <20170709232123.30120-6-arnout@mind.be> References: <20170709232123.30120-1-arnout@mind.be> <20170709232123.30120-6-arnout@mind.be> Message-ID: <20170710180105.44fa823a@windsurf.lan> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 01:21:21 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) wrote: > We piggy-back on an existing test. > > Signed-off-by: Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) > --- > support/testing/tests/toolchain/test_external.py | 8 ++++++++ > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/support/testing/tests/toolchain/test_external.py b/support/testing/tests/toolchain/test_external.py > index afb4bb0b50..c315ef8055 100644 > --- a/support/testing/tests/toolchain/test_external.py > +++ b/support/testing/tests/toolchain/test_external.py > @@ -207,9 +207,13 @@ BR2_TOOLCHAIN_EXTERNAL_CXX=y > self.emulator.login() > > class TestExternalToolchainBuildrootuClibc(TestExternalToolchain): > + # On this test we piggy-back a test of BR2_CCACHE in combination > + # with an external toolchain. I'm not sure I'm a big fan of "hijacking" an existing test to validate ccache. Shouldn't we have a separate test for that, clearly identified as being ccache related? Could be a test that inherits from this one, and simply adds more options. But at least in case of failure it will be clearly identified as a CCache related test in the Gitlab CI results. Thanks, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com