Re: test infrastructure [was: suggested workflow for macro testing?]

[Francesco Salvestrini]

Hi Dustin,

On Sunday 02 August 2009, Dustin J. Mitchell wrote:
> A few points on the patch.
>
> +##
> +## NOTE:
> +##     In order to debug the tests during the 'distcheck' target use the
> +##     following TESTS_ENVIRONMENT:
> +##
> +##       TESTS_ENVIRONMENT = address@hidden@ DEBUG=x VERBOSE=x
> +##
> +TESTS_ENVIRONMENT = address@hidden@
>
> why use @..@ here?  $(abs_builddir) is available in the Makefile.

Those @...@ fixed relative directory problems I had in 'distcheck' for my 
projects. 

Since TESTS_ENVIRONMENT is unused at the moment, that variable could be 
removed completely.

> +do_subst = sed \
> +       -e 's,address@hidden@],$(abs_builddir),g' \
> +       -e 's,address@hidden@],$(SHELL),g'
>
> I can see that this is simpler than an invocation of config.status,
> but is also less general.  Consider just writing a generic invocation
> of config.status instead?
>
>         $(top_builddir)/config.status --file=$@:$<
>         chmod +x $@
>         chmod a-w $@

My do_subst contains variables that could get transformed (they are no 1:1 
respect to the config.status somewhat). The do_subst + Makefile.am targets 
get my to a portable (makefile) and faster/easy way to perform the task.

> Dustin
>
> P.S. I'm not used to examining patches via email, but the text/x-diff
> MIME type doesn't display in my reader for easy commenting with
> 'reply'.  Is that normal?  FWIW, my usual method on other projects is
> to push a temporary topic branch somewhere and ask others to review.

Neither I. I hadn't time to setup a github repo etc. I just preferred to have 
a dirty-working patch than postponing the subject.

Have a good way.
Francesco

-- 
If you think the pen is mightier than the sword, the next time someone pulls
out a sword I'd like to see you get up there with your Bic.