Re: New GnomeGoal proposal: InstalledTests

[Colin Walters <walters verbum org>]

On Fri, 2013-04-26 at 10:32 -0400, Dan Winship wrote:
> On 04/26/2013 10:12 AM, Colin Walters wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-04-26 at 08:46 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> >
> > > You are not going to get me to buy eagerly into a new installed tests
> > > scheme for glib if it means that I have to give up make check.
> >
> > Well, would you be OK with:
> >
> > $ jhbuild make
> > $ gnome-desktop-testing-runner glib
>
> I want "make distcheck" to still run all of my tests, to guarantee that
> everything works correctly when built from a tarball, not just when
> built from git.

That's going to be a high bar to jump; but I suppose it makes sense to
have both during the transition and give downstreams time to teach their
build systems about revision control.

> It forces the code into the "you don't have futexes" fallback mode, so
> that we can test that that codepath works, even on machines that do have
> futexes. We absolutely want to include that as part of the installed
> tests too.

Mmm...but in a true black box model, that would require
*installing* /usr/share/glib/gbitlock.c.

In the way I have gjs/installed-tests set up, a build of the installed
tests, even though it uses the same git repository, is not supposed to
use the gjs source code.  It's just a way to avoid doubling the number
of git repositories.

> I understand the win of installed tests, but that doesn't mean that
> "make check" tests don't have their own set of wins. I want both.

Ok, I will work on it sometime this cycle.