Re: [PATCH 1/2] tests: make test runner a script, not a shell function

[Ralf Wildenhues]

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 11:12:23PM CEST:
> Maybe we should also say that using TESTS_ENVIRONMENT to define a custom
> test runner is now not only strongly deprecated (as it already was I hope),

No it wasn't.  "test runner" is not a term I would recognize, btw.

> but also unsupported and not working anymore?

> Also, should I look for TESTS_ENVIRONMENT usages in google code search?
> I was really hoping to spae myself the pain... ;-)

Not sure.  If anything, you can use regexes to avoid stuff you're not
interested in.

> > and if not, is it possible to have a compatible one (without too much
> > maintenance effort duplication)?  No need to go the effort right away.
> >
> Well, we could add a new option "old-parallel-tests" or something like
> that, that causes the old code in 'check.am' (with few tweaks in order
> to support the new parsing of `.log' files) to be used instead of the
> 'test-driver' script.  By refactoring some code in handle_tests(), we
> could ensure not to add any real complexity to the automake script
> (w.r.t. to my patches at least); but the duplication between 'check.am'
> and 'test-driver' will unavoidable IMHO.

Well, if we need to use a name, then the name should be for the new one.
That way you can have full backward compatibility.

> > I hope that we do not have to maintain four or more such drivers.
> >
> Me too.  And I also think we should start deprecating the old "serial"
> driver ASAP (i.e., in 1.12, as I think 1.11.2 is sadly  tooearly); but
> this is for another thread, and another time.

Erm, there are quite a few packages out there that can only use the
serial driver.  They require tests run in a specific order, or some
tests run twice, or output not redirected.

I "fixed" Libtool a while ago, but the changed code is still quite
buggy.  I don't think we can expect everyone to migrate.

Cheers,
Ralf