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: [drlvm][testing][jit] regular testing for JIT regressions on HUT
Date Thu, 28 Dec 2006 13:48:18 GMT

On Dec 28, 2006, at 5:31 AM, Egor Pasko wrote:

>
>> So, I think, these tests should go to different place, not to
>> regression test suite. Right?
>
> Good point.
>
> Initially the intention was to call it JIT Unit Tests. But what can
> stop us from tracking regressions with tests based on this idea?
>
> Let's look at the variants where to include the framework:
> 1. smoke
> 2. c-unit
> 3. kernel
> 4. regression
> 5. harmony unit
> 6. forgot something?
> So, for the moment (4) seems most natural. Maybe, some tests to
> include into (2) and some to (4). I do not insist, just want to know
> your opinion for now.

TO be clear, 5 is "classlibrary tests", which I think should remain  
different.  c-unit are also different, because it's a totally  
different testing framework (c-based).  Now, that leaves smoke,  
kernel and regression.

Smoke and kernel should be able to be combined.  Smoke just seems to  
be tests where someone wanted to write their own testing framework.

Regresssion -  I do understand where Tim is coming from in later  
messages in this thread, but I don't actually mind slapping tests  
that show reported bugs into a separate category called "regression",  
because they probably are more complicated than unit tests or even  
general functional tests, and a maybe poke at weird corner cases or  
effects of multiple interacting systems.  It would be interesting to  
see if our regression tests are finding things that unit tests should  
have...

geir

Mime
View raw message