Hi Cato and Mike, Thanks for the discussion — this is already shedding a ton of light :-)
Catonano writes: > Il giorno gio 3 gen 2019 alle ore 19:45 Mike Gran <spk...@yahoo.com> ha > scritto: > >> On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 05:53:33PM +0100, Catonano wrote: >> > Wat's the best practice to instrument a Guile based project for running >> > unit tests ? >> > >> > guile-git has this fragment in the Makefile.am file >> > >> > SCM_LOG_DRIVER = \ >> > $(top_builddir)/pre-inst-env \ >> > $(GUILE) --no-auto-compile -e main \ >> > $(top_srcdir)/build-aux/test-driver.scm >> > >> > as you can see, what Automake produces calls a "main" procedure in a >> > "test-driver.scm" script in the "build-aux" folder >> > >> > The effect is that you can call >> > >> > make check >> > >> > in the root folder and have the tests run >> > >> > Instead, in the Makefile.am file produced by guile-hall wired projects >> you >> > ave this fragment >> > >> > AM_TESTS_ENVIRONMENT = abs_top_srcdir=\"$(abs_top_srcdir)\" >> > SCM_LOG_COMPILER = $(top_builddir)/test-env $(GUILE) >> > AM_SCM_LOG_FLAGS = --no-auto-compile -L \"$(top_srcdir)\" >> > >> > so there's a SCM_LOG_COMPILER instead of a SCM_LOG_DRIVER >> > >> > What is this LOG_COMPILER doing, exactly ? >> >> OK, this is a muddle, but, it goes like this. >> >> > Mike, > > thank you for taking the time to clarify Indeed, this is very helpful. > I think the less painful step at this stage would be to make guile-hall > arrange the tests in the same way that guile-git does So, currently, guile-hall does as Mike did: it uses LOG_COMPILER and expects the test scripts to provide an exit code. A simple but probably bad way to achieve that is to add: (exit (= (test-runner-fail-count (test-runner-current)) 0)) to the bottom of srfi-64 test files. The reason why it might be bad is that it does not generate nice exit codes, but rather simply non-zero if any test fails. I would be happy to have guile-hall support LOG_DRIVER instead/as well. The best way to achieve that would be to have a template driver script, and appropriate changes to the Makefile.am generator. We could then default to TEST_DRIVER, but provide a command line flag to support LOG_COMPILER. > Right now it's the other way around but I don't think Alex would complain, > he openly declares his cluelessness in the matter Quite. > In this way, guile-hall could provide a working solution for new projects > without too much work in wrapping SRFFIs in order to provide compliance > with Automake Agreed, TEST_DRIVER would probably be closer to what people would expect. > The wrapping could me made in a further step Also agreed. Alex
