> From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:jerenkrantz@apache.org]
>
> [ Slightly off-topic, but I think it's worth addressing. ]
>
> On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 03:54:11PM -0700, Chris D. Sloan wrote:
> > - The longer it takes to build your project or to run your tests,
then
> > more tempted the developers will be to say, "Well it worked for me
> > before. All I've changed was to update someone elses changes, it
> > should still work, so I'll commit it without a full build."
>
> Since incremental builds are the norm, I'll bring up that I'm
> aware of some projects that will use knowledge/dependencies of
> your program to only run the automated tests that are in code
> paths directly affected by particular code changes. (The
> assumption is that the original code passed the verification
> tests, so you have a good baseline before your change.)
>
Actually, some tools don't care about dependencies or the structure of
your build solution, they just care about compiled line coverage of test
cases, and if the new build had a change in a certain area the set of
test cases can be prioritized based on what test cases caused that area
to get run.
> IIRC, it was designed for tests that take hours or days to run,
> so you can run only the potentially impacted tests in a fraction
> of the time. So, this policy of skipping your verification tests
> because they take too long isn't necessary. -- justin
>
Not even tests that take hours or days to run it's whole test suites
that when added up take hours, days, or months to run.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed May 22 07:40:26 2002