httpd-test-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geoffrey Young <ge...@modperlcookbook.org>
Subject [Fwd: FAIL Apache-Test-1.06 darwin 6.8]
Date Tue, 11 Nov 2003 01:01:56 GMT
hi all

I've been thinking about this situation for a while now...

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: FAIL Apache-Test-1.06 darwin 6.8
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 01:03:19 +0200 (IST)

!!! no test server configured, please specify an httpd or apxs or put either 
in your PATH. For example:
t/TEST -httpd /path/to/bin/httpd
+-----------------------------------------------------+
| To report problems please refer to the SUPPORT file |
+-----------------------------------------------------+
make: *** [run_tests] Error 1


obviously, the tests are not failing - the test suite is only partially (and 
thus improperly) configured.  so, it bothers me somewhat that 'make test' 
reports back a failure when the package didn't fail, it merely failed to run 
the test suite.

in some work I've been doing lately, I go to great lengths to skip 
Apache-Test setup if there are no -apxs, -httpd, or proper %ENV settings 
when the Makefile is generated, which is particularly important if 
Apache-Test is only relevant for a small portion of the tests.

so, I'm considering changing the situation to have 'make test' return true 
if (and only if) no apache server can be located.  configuration problems, 
etc, will still mean failure.

yes, I know that

$ make && make test && sudo make install

will still install the package, even though the tests didn't run, I'm just 
not convinced that is wrong here - it's not a test failure if the tests 
can't run, and we often "pass" tests when we don't have the proper 
environment (plan skip_all => have_module('foo')).  this is just an 
extension of the same idea.

I would appreciate it if everyone listening could weigh in on this issue (so 
it's not just a debate between two people who probably already don't agree 
:)  I wouldn't be terribly upset if it stayed as it is currently, but my 
position on what tests should be is shifting and I'm more and more convinced 
that this approach is the one to take.

so (constructive) feedback welcome.

--Geoff


Mime
View raw message