2 other classes of tests you may want to consider : - network/internet accessibility required tests - markers for tests that are known/expected to fail under many conditions and are not worth end-user-testing, but end-users can force-running any way if they really want to see the individual failures.
On 2 May 2013 13:18, Ryan Hill <dirtye...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Wed, 1 May 2013 10:14:02 +0200 > Ralph Sennhauser <s...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 21:25:40 -0600 > > Ryan Hill <dirtye...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > I'm also going to rename the "test" flag to "regression-test" or > > > something similar to get it out of FEATURES="test" control. The > > > testsuite is a huge time-suck and only useful to developers IMO > > > (always expected to fail and primarily meant to be used to check for > > > regressions between patchsets). I'm a big supporter of > > > FEATURES="test" by default and I think this is a small step towards > > > that. > > > > This step is so tiny that we wont ever reach the goal like this. > > I was hoping it would set a precedent and then people would start thinking > of > splitting up test into categories, maybe even start a thread about it ;). > > > Let's > > start to properly classify test into categories, like for instance > > > > - expected to be run (cheap, no silly deps) > > - good thing if run (still reasonable wrt resources) (current src_test) > > - if you are the maintainer or simply curious. (boost, jtreg and > > friends) > > Something like "dev-test" or "qa-test"? I can think of a couple packages.. > > > ... and improve on how to configure Portage whether to run tests of any > > given category. > > Yeah I'd love to be able to do something like emerge TESTS="dev qa > system -extradeps -expensive" @world. > > > -- > gcc-porting > toolchain, wxwidgets > @ gentoo.org > -- Kent perl -e "print substr( \"edrgmaM SPA NOcomil.ic\\@tfrken\", \$_ * 3, 3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );" http://kent-fredric.fox.geek.nz
