On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 05:24:12PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Pjotr Prins <pjotr.publi...@thebird.nl> skribis: > > > I am *not* suggesting we stop testing and stop writing tests. They are > > extremely important for integration (thought we could do with a lot > > less and more focussed integration tests - ref Hickey). What I am > > writing is that we don't have to rerun tests for everyone *once* they > > succeed *somewhere*. If you have a successful reproducible build and > > tests on a platform there is really no point in rerunning tests > > everywhere for the exact same setup. It is a nice property of our FP > > approach. Proof that it is not necessary is the fact that we > > distribute substitute binaries without running tests there. What I am > > proposing in essence is 'substitute tests'. > > Understood. > > > If tests are so important to rerun: tell me why we are not running > > tests when substituting binaries? > > Because you have a substitute if and only those tests already passed > somewhere. This is exactly the property we’re interested in, right?
Yup. Problem is substitutes go away. We don't retain them and I often encounter that use case. Providing test-substitutes is much lighter and can be retained forever. When tests ever pass on a build server, we don't have to repeat them. That is my story. Pj.
