From: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
To: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] t/Makefile: get UNIT_TESTS list from C sources
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 12:26:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZbeLcrjIYd4d7PaB@tanuki> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240129031933.GB2433899@coredump.intra.peff.net>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3289 bytes --]
On Sun, Jan 28, 2024 at 10:19:33PM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> We decide on the set of unit tests to run by asking make to expand the
> wildcard "t/unit-tests/bin/*". One unfortunate outcome of this is that
> we'll run anything in that directory, even if it is leftover cruft from
> a previous build. This isn't _quite_ as bad as it sounds, since in
> theory the unit test executables are self-contained (so if they passed
> before, they'll pass even though they now have nothing to do with the
> checked out version of Git). But at the very least it's wasteful, and if
> they _do_ fail it can be quite confusing to understand why they are
> being run at all.
>
> This wildcarding presumably came from our handling of the regular
> shell-script tests, which match "t[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]-*.sh". But the
> difference there is that those are actual tracked files. So if you
> checkout a different commit, they'll go away. Whereas the contents of
> unit-tests/bin are ignored (so not only do they stick around, but you
> are not even warned of the stale files via "git status").
>
> This patch fixes the situation by looking for the actual unit-test
> source files and then massaging those names into the final executable
> names. This has two additional benefits:
>
> 1. It will notice if we failed to build one or more unit-tests for
> some reason (wheras the current code just runs whatever made it to
> the bin/ directory).
>
> 2. The wildcard should avoid other build cruft, like the pdb files we
> worked around in 0df903d402 (unit-tests: do not mistake `.pdb`
> files for being executable, 2023-09-25).
>
> Our new wildcard does make an assumption that unit tests are build from
> C sources. It would be a bit cleaner if we consulted UNIT_TEST_PROGRAMS
> from the top-level Makefile. But doing so is tricky unless we reorganize
> that Makefile to split the source file lists into include-able subfiles.
> That might be worth doing in general, but in the meantime, the
> assumptions made by the wildcard here seems reasonable.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
> ---
> I of course hit this when moving between "next" and "master" for an
> up-and-coming unit-test file which sometimes failed.
>
> t/Makefile | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/t/Makefile b/t/Makefile
> index b7a6fefe28..c5c6e2ef6b 100644
> --- a/t/Makefile
> +++ b/t/Makefile
> @@ -42,7 +42,9 @@ TPERF = $(sort $(wildcard perf/p[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]-*.sh))
> TINTEROP = $(sort $(wildcard interop/i[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]-*.sh))
> CHAINLINTTESTS = $(sort $(patsubst chainlint/%.test,%,$(wildcard chainlint/*.test)))
> CHAINLINT = '$(PERL_PATH_SQ)' chainlint.pl
> -UNIT_TESTS = $(sort $(filter-out %.pdb unit-tests/bin/t-basic%,$(wildcard unit-tests/bin/t-*)))
> +UNIT_TEST_SOURCES = $(wildcard unit-tests/t-*.c)
> +UNIT_TEST_PROGRAMS = $(patsubst unit-tests/%.c,unit-tests/bin/%,$(UNIT_TEST_SOURCES))
> +UNIT_TESTS = $(sort $(filter-out unit-tests/bin/t-basic%,$(UNIT_TEST_PROGRAMS)))
Wouldn't we have to honor `$X` on Windows systems so that the unit tests
have the expected ".exe" suffix here?
Other than this question the patch series looks good to me, thanks!
Patrick
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-29 11:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-29 3:15 [PATCH 0/2] some unit-test Makefile polishing Jeff King
2024-01-29 3:18 ` [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: use order-only prereq for UNIT_TEST_BIN Jeff King
2024-01-29 20:22 ` SZEDER Gábor
2024-01-29 22:06 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-01-30 5:21 ` Jeff King
2024-01-29 3:19 ` [PATCH 2/2] t/Makefile: get UNIT_TESTS list from C sources Jeff King
2024-01-29 11:26 ` Patrick Steinhardt [this message]
2024-01-29 17:49 ` Jeff King
2024-01-29 21:31 ` Adam Dinwoodie
2024-01-30 0:27 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-01-30 5:25 ` Jeff King
2024-01-31 19:13 ` Adam Dinwoodie
2024-01-30 5:23 ` Jeff King
2024-01-29 21:51 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-01-30 5:37 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] some unit-test Makefile polishing Jeff King
2024-01-30 5:37 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] Makefile: use mkdir_p_parent_template for UNIT_TEST_BIN Jeff King
2024-01-30 5:38 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] Makefile: remove UNIT_TEST_BIN directory with "make clean" Jeff King
2024-01-30 5:40 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] t/Makefile: get UNIT_TESTS list from C sources Jeff King
2024-01-31 22:58 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-02-01 10:50 ` Phillip Wood
2024-02-02 1:20 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] some unit-test Makefile polishing Junio C Hamano
2024-02-02 23:52 ` Johannes Schindelin
2024-02-03 1:32 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-02-04 4:41 ` Jeff King
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=ZbeLcrjIYd4d7PaB@tanuki \
--to=ps@pks.im \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
--cc=phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk \
/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).