Am 10. März 2020 10:25:50 MEZ schrieb Stephan Bergmann <sberg...@redhat.com>: >On 06/03/2020 16:31, Rene Engelhard wrote: >> And i think https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/c/core/+/88833 should then >be >> done, too, as it makes it more clear (what is a "subsequentcheck"?) >and >> would be a good rationale to rename >> >https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=libreoffice-subsequentcheckbase >> to something sane (that one is used for in the autopkgtests which run >> the junit tests against a installed (in /usr/lib/libreoffice) LO) > >I'm not sure I understand you. subsequentcheck is orthongonal to >JUnitTest. There are JUnitTests that are not in subsequentcheck, and >there are tests other than JUnitTests that are in subsequentcheck.
The OOoRunner tests, yes. Otherwise: no. make subsequentcheck does only run java tests: cf. https://salsa.debian.org/libreoffice-team/libreoffice/libreoffice/-/blob/master/tests/junit. That one results in https://ci.debian.net/data/autopkgtest/unstable/amd64/libr/libreoffice/4506235/log.gz +search for the junit test.) >But then again, the distinction between unitcheck and subsequentcheck >continued to look somewhat useful, to have a default make target that >runs some but not all of the tests. Now that that odd default make >target is going away, it should indeed become possible to drop the >distinction between unitcheck and subsequentcheck.) Please not, as the unit tests can't be ran against an installed office as quite easy as the subsequentcheck tests (https://salsa.debian.org/libreoffice-team/libreoffice/libreoffice/-/blob/master/tests/patches/java-subsequentcheck-standalone.diff and the file mentioned above) Regards Rene -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet. _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
