Quoting Brian Denny <brian@briandenny.net>:
>
>
> On 8 Oct 2002 cmpilato@collab.net wrote:
>
> > The tests itself is posix-only? As in it only runs on posix
> > platforms? I don't recall your original test doing that, and don't
> > see the need for the new test to do so either. Further, I'm worried
> > about any situation that might result in a test seeming to exist on
> > one platform and not another (you know, it's nice to say "basic-test
> > 9" instead of "basic-test 9, or basic-test 8 on windows"). :-)
>
> the test is there, but just returns success on non-posix platforms,
> so it doesn't throw off the numbering.
>
> see schedule_tests.py: *_executable.
>
>
> > It seems the 'posix-only' portions of the test are small enough
> > to just be conditional pieces of a generic test that should run
> > everywhere.
>
> that's definitely doable.
>
> i could also change the *_executable tests in schedule_tests.py so
> that
> they still do something on windows. but of course, these really
> wouldn't
> be testing anything that other tests don't cover, and 'add_executable'
> would be a misnomer. i suppose i could fold the executable test into
> the previously-existing schedule.py tests...
No, I think it's better to keep it the way it is now -- have separate tests to
check platform-specific functionality, so that test results remain comparable
between platforms. Come to think of it, I might be persuaded to add a mechanism
to explicitly skip tests that aren't relevant on a particular platform, similar
to the XFAIL thing; then the fact that a test is platform-specific would be
evident in the test list, and there'd be no "if posix"-like conditions in the
test code itself.
Thoughts?
Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Oct 9 07:36:50 2002