| Summary: | [exp-run] add support for testing perl modules | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Ports & Packages | Reporter: | Steve Wills <swills> | ||||||||||
| Component: | Ports Framework | Assignee: | Bryan Drewery <bdrewery> | ||||||||||
| Status: | In Progress --- | ||||||||||||
| Severity: | Affects Only Me | CC: | 0mp, adamw, koobs | ||||||||||
| Priority: | Normal | Keywords: | patch | ||||||||||
| Version: | Latest | ||||||||||||
| Hardware: | Any | ||||||||||||
| OS: | Any | ||||||||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||||||
|
Description
Steve Wills
2012-02-08 04:10:15 UTC
Responsible Changed From-To: freebsd-ports-bugs->portmgr State Changed From-To: open->analyzed Responsible Changed From-To: portmgr->linimon Here's an updated patch. I believe this may be much closer to ready. Steve On 04/25/12 22:05, Steve Wills wrote:
> Here's an updated patch. I believe this may be much closer to ready.
>
> Steve
Slight change: USE_PERL_TESTS -> WITH_PERL_TESTS
Steve
Here's a further updated version of the patch. It has a few minor changes such as not including tests if TEST_DEPENDS are defined. Would still like to get feedback from someone who knows bsd.port.mk well. My basic question is, am I better off with this sort of "bolted on" approach to testing, or should I take a different approach and integrate the TEST_DEPENDS so they are treated like other DEPENDS, for example showing up in "make describe" and creating a "pretty-print-test-depends-list" target. Thanks, Steve Responsible Changed From-To: linimon->swills This test was completed some time ago. Sorry to have put off doing the analysis until now. The results are in: http://pointyhat-west.isc.freebsd.org/errorlogs/amd64-errorlogs/e.9.20120324081752.pointyhat-west/index-reason.html There were no failures with the ports infrastructure. All 13 package errors marked 'mtree' seem to be regressions introduced by the patch. Please advise. On Jun 1, 2012, at 11:54 PM, linimon@FreeBSD.org wrote: > Synopsis: [exp-run] add support for testing perl modules > > Responsible-Changed-From-To: linimon->swills > Responsible-Changed-By: linimon > Responsible-Changed-When: Sat Jun 2 03:50:29 UTC 2012 > Responsible-Changed-Why: > This test was completed some time ago. Sorry to have put off doing the > analysis until now. > > The results are in: > > http://pointyhat-west.isc.freebsd.org/errorlogs/amd64-errorlogs/e.9.20120324081752.pointyhat-west/index-reason.html > > There were no failures with the ports infrastructure. > > All 13 package errors marked 'mtree' seem to be regressions introduced > by the patch. Please advise. > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=164896 The 13 package errors marked 'mtree' are due to the patch creating a "regression-test" target that calls the "test" target, in the case that the regression-test target doesn't exist. These ports have "test" targets which create extra files, which creates the mtree issue. I've seen that happen with many perl ports during my own testing. Since pointyhat calls the "regression-test" target, the mtree issue is triggered due to this patch where it wouldn't be before because the regression-test call wasn't calling the test target. We can solve these issues several ways. Perhaps the simplest way would be to have the test patch changed so that the default test target is only created if both the test and the regression-test targets do not exist. Another would be to standardize on only "test" or "regression-test". Or we might have pointyhat not call the test target. Yet another way to solve the problem might be to have the ports changed so that their tests don't leave leftover files. I'm guessing there are a small number of ports which have regression-test targets which are called by pointyhat and which had this "test creates mtree issue" issue in the past which were fixed. All but the simplest solution would require more discussion... I think we need to standardize on the naming and decide where/when tests will be run in any case, so perhaps now's the time.... Steve (re-sending to get this into the PR) Responsible Changed From-To: swills->portmgr - Back to portmgr for discussion Responsible Changed From-To: portmgr->bdrewery I've been deep into bsd.port.mk deps lately, I will see this in. I will move bsd.test.mk into a USES as well. I agree with the "bolted on" approach as the general case right now is no tests" Do note that perl.mk has a regression-test target (and a test one), look at the end :-) -- Mathieu Arnold *** Bug 198494 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** |