Re: About tests integration

[Jose Dapena Paz <jdapena igalia com>]

El jue, 07-09-2006 a las 17:59 +0200, Frederic Peters escribió:

> Well, I would still prefer to get raw logs, even in different formats,
> and process them server-side than getting already-processed files.

	The main fact is: we need to know when tests are failing, in order to
notify the developer. It's usually implemented with the return status of
the tests (in that case "make check" should return a failure).

	Once we get this, the responbility to know what causes the tests
breakage is for the developer, so he could choose his preferred format,
if any.

	We can try to show a generic wonderful view of all the tests of GNOME,
but they're such heterogeneity (number, quality and design principles of
the specific tests in each module) that makes this information not very
useful.

	There are reasons to provide standarised unit tests status: one
developer wants to know if he's breaking another module he hasn't got
responsibility on, or he wants to know if a failure in another module
would be making his own module fail. Then there should be an easy way to
explore the tests of a non-very-well-known module. This would be great,
but I wouldn't put this as a priority.

> I spent enough time scraping HTML to prefer XML well-formness
> insurance.

	Sure :).

	Even a reduced set of XML formats could be transformed to a common one
through XSL. For me trying to get the existing test frameworks give us
an XML shouldn't be that difficult.

-- 
Jose Dapena Paz <jdapena igalia com>
Igalia