harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geir Magnusson Jr <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: classlib test suite status emails?
Date Wed, 12 Apr 2006 10:51:07 GMT

Anton Avtamonov wrote:
> On 4/12/06, Stepan Mishura <stepan.mishura@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi George,
>>  Your example looks good for me and I think everybody agreed that we should
>> organize testing to avoid running all tests for each update: if you fix bug
>> in 'net' module you don't have to run tests say for 'awt' module but if you
>> update 'luni' then you have to run tests for all modules.
> Absolutely agree. Looks like a concept of so-called 'dependency
> matrix'. Its rows and columns represents functional areas. Each cell
> contains a number from 0 to 1 which represents the correlation between
> those functionalilies, diagonal cells (representing self-impact of
> each functional area) obviously contain 1.
> QE usually used that approach to decide which tests needs to be re-executed.
> Simplifiing this approach to use only binary dependency (0 or 1) I
> beleive it can be automated so that commiter will just need to call
> some ant target to run all dependent tests. Of course, it needs to be
> kept up to date, however I expect such dependencies are not
> dynamically changed, i.e. it is well-known that almost everything
> depends from luni and almost nothing from net, etc.

Would be nice if this allowed one to work their way out of the 
dependency graph.

So default is just immediate dependencies.  Then some property = 2 means 
immediate + the dependencies on the immediate.

Although, I wonder if 2 -> everything anyway....


Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org

View raw message