[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A possible scheme might be a directory hierarchy matching the OS/CPU
combination, e.g. Linux/x_86, Linux/i_64, Solaris/Sparc, containing dummy
files whose names match the processes NOT to be run for that environment.
(The precise structure would depend on which combinati
> I think the data will support the idea that a directory structure based
on OS/CPU is probably not the way to start.
>
Quite possibly. The proposed file could suffer from the same combinatorial
explosion, if not properly structured. Does anyone have a good idea of the
most economical structure for
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Some hand-waving on the problem of configuration and test selection, (as
> the two appear to share the issues, an ideal solution would address both).
>
> For any usable environment, a large set of common processes have to be
> executed, with a small
Some hand-waving on the problem of configuration and test selection, (as
the two appear to share the issues, an ideal solution would address both).
For any usable environment, a large set of common processes have to be
executed, with a smaller, OS &&/|| CPU specific set omitted. One way to do
this
Gabor Szabo wrote:
[darwin]
t/pmc/foo.t 3 5-7 9 # platform doesn't support libfoo
t/pmc/bar.t 1 42
...
This seems to be too obvious to be a real question but what if someone
adds a new test
in the middle of bar.t ?
Will she have to remember to update the numbers in the central config file?
T
On Jan 10, 2008 12:23 PM, Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Aye, I would want to improve on the Python solution. But maintaining a
> config file something like:
>
> [darwin]
> t/pmc/foo.t 3 5-7 9 # platform doesn't support libfoo
> t/pmc/bar.t 1 42
> ...
>
> [MSWin32]
> t/pmc/foo.t 32
>
Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
That assumes that tests are skipped per file, which is not always the
case (sometimes you want to skip only one test, sometimes even to work
around an OS bug that appears only in one specific version). But
reorganizing platform-dependent tests might be a good idea.
# from Rafael Garcia-Suarez
# on Wednesday 09 January 2008 05:36:
>Allison Randal wrote in perl.perl6.internals :
>> In the Python test suite, there's a single global location to
>> declare a list of test files that are expected to be skipped on a
>> particular platform. This has a much cleaner fe
Allison Randal wrote in perl.perl6.internals :
> In the Python test suite, there's a single global location to declare a
> list of test files that are expected to be skipped on a particular
> platform. This has a much cleaner feel than our own motley collection of
> skip and todo markers in vari
