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: [testing] test exclude list: can't we have incremental exclusions?
Date Fri, 24 Nov 2006 17:59:30 GMT


Alexey Varlamov wrote:
> Geir,
> This was a bit emotional maybe... Sure, any way it will be is not
> lethal, and I do not mind it too much.

What, the veto?  I didn't take it that way :)  My point was that when 
someone puts up a "-1", it really gets people's attention as a strong 
position.

> My point is if you modify "official" x-list you most certainly won't
> lose it off track, while local svn-ignored file have a good chance to
> hang around for a while. OTOH, is there any difference which file to
> edit? I suppose no, hence this is almost useless in my POV.

I agree you won't lose it, but when it's in a file that isn't meant for 
purely personal use then you have problems in being sure not to commit 
it, having to deal with merge conflicts, etc.

I think about it in the same spirit of the drlvm.properties.example - 
people copy to an un-svn-ed local copy for local config.  Excluding 
tests while you are working on something is that kind of thing.

> If you really want it, I've withdrawn my veto.

No :)  I'd like to come to consensus.  You may even convince me it's not 
a good idea.

I think that maybe one solution that may address your concerns would be 
to actually put the file under SVN!  Then

a) you'll notice when there's something in it - the state of the file in 
SVN should always be empty

b) If you forget and commit, someone can flag it.

geir

> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> Alexey
> 
> 24.11.06, Geir Magnusson Jr.<geir@pobox.com> написал(а):
>> As a point of process, ball is on your court.  I'm respecting your -1
>> (although I wouldn't personally have been so forceful with a veto - and
>> I'm not sure that this is really something that can be vetoed), but I
>> expect us to discuss...
>>
>> geir
>>
>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> >
>> > Alexey Varlamov wrote:
>> >> Geir,
>> >>
>> >> This sounds alarming - why do you need local exclude list?
>> >
>> > Because I may be testing something and I dont' want that test to be run
>> > for some reason.
>> >
>> >> This is
>> >> error prone, you might forget about locally excluded tests and then
>> >> commit improperly tested.
>> >> -1 until convincingly useful.
>> >
>> > People are going to do it anyway - comment out things locally.  If I
>> > screw up, and mask something, then everyone else is going to find my 
>> error.
>> >
>> > I see no danger to this, and we make people's lives easier.
>> >
>> > geir
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Alexey
>> >>
>> >> 24.11.06, Geir Magnusson Jr.<geir@pobox.com> написал(а):
>> >>> And while you're at it, how about making kind-and-gentle support for
>> >>> local excludes such that I can have a file
>> >>>
>> >>>     exclude.local
>> >>>
>> >>> which is my local exclusion list that
>> >>>
>> >>> a) will be svn-ignored and
>> >>>
>> >>> b) doesn't have to be there - so if a developer hasn't created the 
>> file,
>> >>> the build just keeps going...  I *think* that not having the file 
>> for an
>> >>> <excludesfile> entry will let the build keep going, but I'm not
sure.
>> >>>
>> >>> geir
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> >>> > That works for me.  It will only increase the number of files if
>> >>> > platforms have bugs, but it will make for easier maintenance.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > We'll do the same in DRLVM too.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > geir
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Ivanov, Alexey A wrote:
>> >>> >> Hi everyone,
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Recently test exclude lists were removed from build.xml of
the
>> >>> >> corresponding module, and there were added *six* files with

>> excluded
>> >>> >> tests. These files contain almost the same list of files. The

>> lists
>> >>> >> are identical for swing module. I found 2 differences for awt

>> module
>> >>> >> (there are still about 50 files names listed in every of the

>> exclude
>> >>> >> lists).
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Why can't we use one 'exclude.all' file to exclude tests which
>> >>> fail on
>> >>> >> every platform? It's an obvious optimization.
>> >>> >> I've tested the approach of using several exclude list files
on
>> >>> >> build.xml of swing module. It works just fine.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Your comments?
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Regards,
>> >>> >> Alexey.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> ----- build.xml patch --------
>> >>> >> Index: build.xml
>> >>> >> 
>> ===================================================================
>> >>> >> --- build.xml   (revision 478584)
>> >>> >> +++ build.xml   (working copy)
>> >>> >> @@ -186,6 +186,7 @@
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>                  <fileset 
>> dir="${hy.swing.src.test.api}/java/common">
>> >>> >>                      <include name="**/*Test*.java"/>
>> >>> >> +                       <excludesfile name="./make/exclude.all"
/>
>> >>> >>                      <excludesfile name="${exclude.file}"
/>
>> >>> >>                  </fileset>
>> >>> >>              </batchtest>
>> >>> >> ------------------------------
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> --
>> >>> >> Alexey A. Ivanov
>> >>> >> Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division
>> >>>
>>

Mime
View raw message