Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> writes: > 31/07/2019 22:54, Michael Santana Francisco: >> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:50 AM Aaron Conole <acon...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > --- a/.ci/linux-build.sh >> > +++ b/.ci/linux-build.sh >> > @@ -22,3 +22,11 @@ fi >> > OPTS="$OPTS --default-library=$DEF_LIB" >> > meson build --werror -Dexamples=all $OPTS >> > ninja -C build >> > + >> > +if [ "$RUN_TESTS" = "1" ]; then >> > + # On the test build, also build the documentation, since it's >> > expensive >> > + # and we shouldn't need to build so much of it. >> > + ninja -C build doc > > I am not sure to understand the comment. > Do you mean you build the documentation only once, > which is when running tests?
Yes. > Why it is not a new option similar as RUN_TESTS? I mentioned it at: http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-July/136635.html also. Because it adds build time. >> > --- a/.travis.yml >> > +++ b/.travis.yml >> > @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ env: >> > - DEF_LIB="shared" >> > - DEF_LIB="static" OPTS="-Denable_kmods=false" >> > - DEF_LIB="shared" OPTS="-Denable_kmods=false" >> > + - DEF_LIB="shared" RUN_TESTS=1 >> I don't agree with this. This is redundant. Why not put RUN_TESTS=1 on >> an already exiting builds instead of adding two new builds like you >> are doing here? > > I agree it is a strange logic. > Why not use an existing build to run the tests? The biggest reason is when it fails, it is difficult to know why "at a glance." When it does fail due to unit tests, it sometimes takes a long time to load the logs - so just knowing that the failure is likely in the unit tests area vs. build is helpful to understand where to start looking. It isn't a big deal to merge them, though if you'd prefer it.
