Florin,
That makes sense to me. Unless someone has a better suggestion, I'd
just shorten that to "extras/apps/test".
Any other comments/suggestions?
Thanks,
-daw-
On 08/23/2017 05:41 PM, Florin Coras wrote:
Dave,
Agreed, modulo one comment: I’d like the folder to be named something
more specific than “extras/apps”. We can keep that for genuine
application, but for any apps meant for testing, I’d go with
“extras/apps/testing” or something along those lines.
Cheers,
Florin
On Aug 23, 2017, at 2:21 PM, Dave Wallace <dwallac...@gmail.com
<mailto:dwallac...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Jon,
On 08/23/2017 03:41 PM, Jon Loeliger wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Dave Wallace<dwallac...@gmail.com> wrote:
Jon,
I think this is an excellent idea as your example is clearly a test escape
that we should be detecting in our CI infra.
However, I'm not sure if "make test" is the appropriate place to add this
check. IMHO, this would be better suited to be invoked under "make verify"
(like the clang test coverage). I recommend that code itself live in
.../vpp/src/apps
This is the problem. All the existing code is "in tree". That always works.
I want something that is building based on out-of-tree (ie, RPM install
directory), like the 'make test' provides.
IMO, "in-tree" .vs. "out-of-tree" really boils down to decoupling the
app's "Makefile.am" the rest of the vpp autotools
structure/configuration. For example, I ran into the same issue with
.../vppsb/vcl-ldpreload/src/Makefile.am (which is literally
'out-of-tree') in the case where "VPP_DIR" is specified. However,
the vcl-ldpreload build would work the same if it was moved somewhere
under vpp without integrating it into .../vpp/src/Makefile.am -- thus
it would equally be "out-of-tree" even though it was stored in the
vpp repo.
There are some other test apps in .../vpp/src/uri, which could be migrated
there as well if we want to consolidate all apps under one directory.
Personally I think this makes sense.
Are these already being built from 'install' staging directories?
Currently these are "noinst_PROGRAMS" in .../vpp/src/uri.am. To
build them for testing, "s/noinst_PROGRAMS/bin_PROGRAMS/g" in uri.am,
then rebuild -- which does build them 'in-tree' (i.e. using the vpp
autotools structure/configuration) --> the resulting binary
executable files land in .../vpp/build-root/install-vpp*-native/vpp/bin.
In any case, I think that it is entirely possible to implement your
proposal in such a way as to ensure that we can close the test escape
that was the impetus for your proposal. My recommendation is to
consolidate test applications in the same location in the process, in
which case I think .../vpp/extras/apps is a better location than
either .../vpp/make/test/c or .../vpp/src/apps
Thanks,
-daw-
jdl
_______________________________________________
vpp-dev mailing list
vpp-dev@lists.fd.io <mailto:vpp-dev@lists.fd.io>
https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev
_______________________________________________
vpp-dev mailing list
vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev
