From: phillip.wood123@gmail.com
To: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>,
Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com>
Cc: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>,
Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>,
Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk>,
git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Feasibility of folding `unit-tests` into `make test`, was Re: [PATCH] ci: avoid running the test suite _twice_
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 15:05:19 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4d5f5b5f-d30e-4edc-976e-f11e837545f6@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <850ea42c-f103-68d5-896b-9120e2628686@gmx.de>
On 16/11/2023 08:42, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2023, Josh Steadmon wrote:
>> On 2023.11.13 13:49, Jeff King wrote:
>> We could bundle all the unit tests into a single shell script, but then
>> we lose parallelization and add hoops to jump through to determine what
>> breaks. Or we could autogenerate a corresponding shell script to run
>> each individual unit test, but that seems gross. Of course, these are
>> hypothetical concerns for now, since we only have a single unit test at
>> the moment.
>
> I totally agree with you, Josh, that it makes little sense to
> try to contort the unit tests to be run in the same `prove` run as the
> regression tests that need to be invoked so totally differently.
FWIW that's my feeling too. It makes sense for "make test" to run the
unit tests, but wrapping the unit tests in one or more shell scripts
adds unnecessary complexity.
Best Wishes
Phillip
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-11-16 15:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-11-13 17:00 [PATCH] ci: avoid running the test suite _twice_ Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2023-11-13 18:49 ` Jeff King
2023-11-13 23:55 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-11-14 21:29 ` Josh Steadmon
2023-11-15 1:00 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-11-15 21:28 ` Josh Steadmon
2023-11-16 8:42 ` Feasibility of folding `unit-tests` into `make test`, was " Johannes Schindelin
2023-11-16 15:05 ` phillip.wood123 [this message]
2024-01-04 23:54 ` Josh Steadmon
2023-11-16 20:02 ` Jeff King
2023-11-13 20:25 ` [PATCH v2] " Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2023-11-14 0:24 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4d5f5b5f-d30e-4edc-976e-f11e837545f6@gmail.com \
--to=phillip.wood123@gmail.com \
--cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitgitgadget@gmail.com \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
--cc=phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk \
--cc=steadmon@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).