Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 18:56:04 -0700 From: NGie Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> To: Julio Merino <jmmv@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-testing@freebsd.org" <freebsd-testing@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: [RFC] Rename `make test` in suite.test.mk with `make regress` Message-ID: <E4FD723B-256D-4EF1-B1B5-C3303E77C59B@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5C39F495-5717-450F-8460-14B69DD48AD6@freebsd.org> References: <F3E9AA8C-690E-4E66-827B-B99981B8B336@gmail.com> <5C39F495-5717-450F-8460-14B69DD48AD6@freebsd.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
> On Oct 17, 2015, at 18:50, Julio Merino <jmmv@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On Oct 17, 2015, at 18:03, NGie Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> There’s a lesser known target in suite.test.mk that runs `kyua test` in a similar manner to how Jenkins and other groups have integrated kyua into their test infrastructures. >> The legacy target on FreeBSD was `regress`, but the target created with the bsd.test.mk creation back a few years ago was `test`. Why change from `test` to `regress`? There are places in the tree (bin/test for example) that have targets named test, so in order to avoid clashing with a common target (name), it’s best to use the legacy target name. >> Would anyone have any serious heartburn over the change? > > Is this only because of bin/test? Seems like renaming a target to avoid that one collision is just moving the problem around. It is possible that some other directory could later grow a target that conflicts with your new name. Yes, I realize that. The goal though is I want to be able to call `make <something>` from the top and it would iterate down each and every subdirectory and run tests. Sadly, most people don’t care to figure out how kyua works enough to run `kyua test`… so I’m just trying to lower the barrier of entry in a way that will work 100% of the time. > Strictly speaking, "regress" is wrong. We do not have regression tests only. Also, "regress" is a pretty obscure name for a target; it does not appear in any other projects nor in any other build systems that I know of. Unfortunately it’s been in place a lot longer than anything else, so it’s kind of the “defacto standard”. That said... > Have you considered "check"? That'd be in line with what automake does, for example, which would homogenize the target name with a ton of other projects out there. … `make check` would be ok too. I just have to comb the tree for binaries that don’t match `check`. Thanks! -NGiehelp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E4FD723B-256D-4EF1-B1B5-C3303E77C59B>