Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 16:10:21 -0600 From: Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> To: jbeich@freebsd.org Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r478608 - head/devel/msgpack Message-ID: <CAP7rwcjwFC8gCs9RyHc5yF3OTgeFH5gKEu6gbTOmk%2BznC1JKsQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4lfa-19se-wny@FreeBSD.org> References: <201808312014.w7VKEwAC012418@repo.freebsd.org> <CAP7rwcik058qn1JMu=OxezScEP8Qe%2BQv-kdDf3nwX6R=L%2BoTEQ@mail.gmail.com> <4lfa-19se-wny@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:55 PM Jan Beich <jbeich@freebsd.org> wrote: > > Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> writes: > > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 2:15 PM Jan Beich <jbeich@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > >> > >> Author: jbeich > >> Date: Fri Aug 31 20:14:57 2018 > >> New Revision: 478608 > >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/478608 > >> > >> Log: > >> devel/msgpack: restore TEST_TARGET after r470984 > >> > >> TEST_DEPENDS is pointless without do-test or TEST_TARGET. automake > >> required googletest only during "check" but cmake wants it upfront > >> during "test". So, move tests into a separate option. > > > > I don't get it. 130 ports out of 33,012 have TEST options. That's > > 0.3%. This sounds like your personal preference, not an "any > > maintainer would want this fixed" commit. OPTIONS are to let users > > customize the package, not to assist people who want to run their own > > regression tests. > > TEST option is only used when do-test cannot run with the default build. > Not all ports require such a configuration, many work simply by calling > "make test" from the port directory. Some ports only build tests when a > specific vendor target is called thus installing TEST_DEPENDS in time > for build system to pick them up. > > In msgpack there were 2 issues: > - "make test" didn't run tests at all, only installed googletest > - "make test" tried to run non-existing vendor "test" target because > googletest was installed too late, so cmake auto-disabled tests > > > The fact that poudriere doesn't automatically run tests is not > > justification to adding a non-standard OPTION. If you want to test it > > in poudriere, run testport -i and run ctest yourself. > > I disagree. Running tests were supported and done by default when the > package cluster (pointyhat at the time) used tinderbox, not poudriere. > After tinderbox was phased out regression-test and TEST_DEPENDS usage in > ports started to bitrot until amdmi3@ standardized the support outside > of tree building tools. Some of unsolved problems are integration into > poudriere, what to run by default (e.g., QAT slave) and fixing/flagging > broken tests. poudriere can be worked around via "pre-install: do-test" > but when a user enabled TEST option the intent is already clear. > > Not sure if you're joking about "testport -i" but many other packaging > systems run tests as part of automation. I applaud if you run it > manually on every update. Do you expect the next maintainer to continue > the tradition? > > > Please back this out. > > OK but TEST_DEPENDS will go away. If you don't bother to learn how > testing framework[1] works there's no benefit to keep the cruft aka the > remnants of the work you've trampled on via maintainer timeout. > > [1] see /usr/ports/CHANGES from 20150928 I don't disagree that running ctest manually is obtuse, but to me, the best solution to the problem is teaching poudriere to install TEST_DEPENDS and run 'make test'. The need for googletest to be brought in earlier was not on my radar because of the way that I test (I have a script that adds TEST_DEPENDS to BUILD_DEPENDS when testing in poudriere), and I see now why you put it in as an OPTION. Also, I'd like to thank you for the statement that I don't know how to use ports. It's a very helpful technique that made me really want to see it from your side. I also really appreciated the dig at me for committing after a maintainer timeout, when you chose to forego the PR process entirely. Thankfully, we know from experience how highly you rank your own opinions. # Adam -- Adam Weinberger adamw@adamw.org https://www.adamw.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAP7rwcjwFC8gCs9RyHc5yF3OTgeFH5gKEu6gbTOmk%2BznC1JKsQ>