Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com> writes: > On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 10:07:26AM +0100, David Marchand wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 3:56 PM Aaron Conole <acon...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > diff --git a/doc/guides/contributing/testing.rst >> > b/doc/guides/contributing/testing.rst >> > new file mode 100644 >> > index 0000000000..86ca24ce43 >> > --- /dev/null >> > +++ b/doc/guides/contributing/testing.rst >> > @@ -0,0 +1,245 @@ >> > +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause >> > + Copyright 2018 The DPDK contributors >> >> 2021?
Whoops, I forgot to update my time machine. >> > + >> > +.. _testing_guidelines: >> >> I can't find a call to the testing_guidelines reference, so this can be >> removed. done. >> >> [snip] >> >> > +The suites can be selected by adding the ``--suite`` option to the >> > +``meson test`` command. Ex: ``meson test --suite fast-tests``:: >> > + >> > + $ meson test -C build --suite fast-tests >> > + ninja: Entering directory `/home/aconole/git/dpdk/build' >> > + [2543/2543] Linking target app/test/dpdk-test. >> > + 1/60 DPDK:fast-tests / acl_autotest OK 3.17 s >> > + 2/60 DPDK:fast-tests / bitops_autotest OK 0.22 s >> > + 3/60 DPDK:fast-tests / byteorder_autotest OK 0.22 s >> > + 4/60 DPDK:fast-tests / cmdline_autotest OK 0.28 s >> > + 5/60 DPDK:fast-tests / common_autotest OK 0.57 s >> > + 6/60 DPDK:fast-tests / cpuflags_autotest OK 0.27 s >> > + ... >> >> Trying this in my build env, I get all tests failing. >> This is because I run this as a normal user, but the system has >> hugepages configured. >> I figured this out quickly since I know the test framework (simply >> added a echo 0; exit at the top of has-hugepages.sh). >> But I am not sure a reader of this doc would be able to troubleshoot this. >> >> Not sure if this is worth explaining here, or if we can enhance the >> hugepage check (permissions maybe?). I prefer to fix the hugepage check to make the tests SKIP when we don't have hugepages accessible (so we need some kind of permission check in there). I will submit it separately. >> >> [snip] >> >> > +Checking code coverage >> > +---------------------- >> > +The meson build system supports generating a code coverage report >> > +via the `-Db_coverage=true` option, in conjunction with a package >> > +like **lcov**, to generate an HTML code coverage report. Example:: >> > + >> > + $ meson covered -Db_coverage=true >> >> At first, I read "covered" as a meson command :-). >> I prefer an explicit "meson setup covered -Db_coverage=true", but well >> this is more a matter of taste. >> >> > > I also tend to prefer the build directory name at the end of the command, > so I'd suggest: "meson setup -Db_coverage=true covered". Furthermore, > while I can understand the use of "covered" as a build directory name, I > think for consistency across all docs, we should just use "build" here as > the directory name, which again will reduce confusion. "meson setup > -Db_coverage build" Okay - I will paint this bikeshed like: meson setup build -Db_coverage=true It's a little inconsistent everywhere - so I guess a good janitor project would be to clean up all the places we have meson commands. Otherwise, what I've found is that the options generally come after the build directory / command is specified (ex: see octeontx, the arm64 cross build docs, etc.) so I'll keep that for consistency there. Hopefully we will consistently become more consistent :) > /Bruce
