On 05/17/2016 06:01 AM, Pallav Agarwal wrote: > Hi, > You are right, of course. > The target is to standardize something that would encourage maintainers > to actually provide non-upstream scripts to test packages. At the same > time, it should be possible to use those scripts for automated testing > without > human interference. >
We already have "emerge --config" which is expected to be run after the install process has completed, so I don't think that this is too much of a stretch. Maybe call the phase "pkg_test" analogous to "pkg_config" and in contrast to "src_test" which runs within the working directory. Then "emerge --test" could run it. I stole the Emacs "test plan" idea for a few Haskell packages: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Haskell/Test_plans These do go a little beyond the scope of unit tests: they check that we installed the package in the right place, that it's available to your ghci interpreter, and that we haven't installed some other library with a name collision. Some of them have predictable output (like when we hash a string), but others might cause some trouble. The expected output for hscolour is "you should see a syntax-highlighted version of Example.hs echoed to your terminal." I don't care what colors show up, as long as that happens. Still, even if it doesn't work in 100% of cases, I think it could be useful. Some people may have inflated ideas of what the stabilization process currently involves. In many cases, it's a compile/execute test with no expected results and that could easily be automated even if it's not the world's best stabilization process.
