On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 02:32:26AM -0400, Mike Lambert wrote: > Mr. Nobody wrote: > > > Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 18:13:27 -0700 (PDT) > > From: Mr. Nobody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [PATCH] in makefile, move libparrot.a from "test" to "all" > > > > libparrot.a is not really related to testing, it should belong in "all". This > > patch does so, and as a side effect, t/src/basic will now work with "make testj". > > I thought so as well, at first. And currently, that might be an > okay thing to do. > > However, it might help if I explain the purpose of the t/src/* tests. The > originate from ticket 468: > http://bugs6.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=468 > > I believe the eventual intent is to set up the t/src/* tests to test: > a) functions in parrot which aren't testable via opcodes, and thus can't > be tested with our pasm files. > b) the embedding system, to ensure that a static interface doesn't change > behavior on us, etc. > > Currently however, neither a nor b are implemented, and so the t/src/* > test have no direct dependancy upon libparrot.a/lib and libparrot.so/dll, > and so can probably be removed. If it helps make 0.0.8 build on more > platforms, it might be a "good thing" to do.
As long as it's not long-term. I have a patch I will be sending in soon that includes a large test case in t/src, and it requires libparrot.a. But t/src/basic.t test 2 calls internal_exception(); shouldn't that require libparrot.a already? Either way, I think more t/src/ tests can only be a good thing, since they'll help narrow regression failures down to either the underlying ADT or the calling code. And if the failure is in the core code, it's easier to debug when you don't have peer at the problem through the outer layers of parrot. So I vote for leaving the directory, and fixing the library building instead. (Which means I agree with Mike, since 0.0.8 has gone out now!) It ought to be commented in the makefile *why* the tests require libparrot.
