On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 10:05:17 -0500 Anthony Liguori <anth...@codemonkey.ws> wrote:
> On 06/10/2011 09:55 AM, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > > On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 18:04:44 -0500 > >> You kind of get the desired behavior if you run the test via something > >> like: > >> > >> gtester -k -o test.xml test-visiter > >> > >> The gtester utility will log the return code after a test bombs, then > >> restart and skip to the test following the one that bombed. And I'm sure > >> gtester-report can process the resulting test.xml in manner similar to > >> check... > > > > Ok, that makes the problem less worse and I agree it's possible to cook > > a workaround for it. But IMO, glib's test framework is flawed. You just > > can't require developers to run two additional utilities and dump xml so > > that they can know a particular test exploded. > > It all happens automagically during make check. I don't understand what > the problem here is. That's the "I agree it's possible to cook a workaround for it" part. But of course that we have to fix gtester-report first. It doesn't work today and it only knows how to dump HTML.
