Re: [PATCH] Document AM_MISSING_PROG.

[Benoit Sigoure]

On Nov 6, 2007, at 5:04 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:

> * Benoit Sigoure wrote on Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 01:24:11AM CET:
> > On Nov 5, 2007, at 10:09 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > > Would be good to also have a test with a program that does not  
> > > exist,
> > > i.e., a test that exposes all aspects of `missing's functionality,
> > > OTOH, tests/missing*.test covers most of that already, so this is ok
> > > I guess.
> >
> > That's what I thought, do I need to write more tests?
>
> I guess you can just fold that into the same test.

OK.

> > I find the
> > testsuite slow enough despite my 2Ghz Core2Duo ;o  (It'll be better
> > with make -j2, once we include the parallel test feature :D)
>
> But you do know how to limit testing?
>   cd tests && TESTS=foo.test make -e check   # VERBOSE=yes

Yes, I even mentioned that for some reason `make check' didn't run my  
new test but `make check -C tests TESTS=ammissingprog.test' worked  
fine.  I like to distcheck before sending patches / pushing, but it  
takes an awful lot of time (be it for Automake or Autoconf).  By the  
way, is there a buildfarm or some sort of automated build system that  
tests each commit on a wide range of different configurations?  (or  
at least in the most common ones?)

Cheers,

--
Benoit Sigoure aka Tsuna
EPITA Research and Development Laboratory

PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part