Bruno Haible <br...@clisp.org> writes: > Hi Simon, > >> Ouch. Shouldn't we rename 'valgrind-tests' instead? >> ... >> Whatever problem appears if we rename >> 'valgrind-tests' to, say, 'valgrindtests' we could fix. > > 'valgrindtests' would be a hack.
How so? The old name was a hack because it hijacked the *-tests namespace to gain those properties, without actually being a self-test. I think 'valgrindtests' may be a bit more descriptive, and allows us to write a valgrindtests-tests to actually test that the module is working (which would be useful -- there has been bugs causing valgrind not to be used, and since the output is silent you would normally never notice). > 'valgrind-support-for-tests' would have the same problem. > > 'test-support-with-valgrind' would reflect the meaning, but is a bit long. Maybe 'valgrind-on-selftests'. However I also realize that the name is quite well established and has been in the gnulib manual for a long time. So I suspect renaming it will just cause more problems than it solves. https://www.gnu.org/software//gnulib/manual/html_node/Running-self_002dtests-under-valgrind.html >> The naming was a clever hack long time ago > > What did this naming attempt to achieve? I must admit I do not remember fully, but I recall it had something to do with how gnulib-tool automatically added modules and its makefile/autoconf snippets to the standard invocation process by default, and there wasn't a simple way to achieve that except by naming the module *-tests. All of that now feels more like a problem than a feature though. If actual problems appears in the future, we can revisit this, looking back at this thread. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature