[PATCH] Only build tests when unit tests are enabled.

[Gaetan Nadon]

On Wed, 2011-03-23 at 09:14 +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 11:26:24AM -0400, Gaetan Nadon wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-03-22 at 11:56 +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer at who-t.net>
> > > ---
> > > I'll squash this in with the other patch, no need to have two separate ones.
> > > 
> > >  test/Makefile.am |    2 +-
> > >  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > 
> > Now that I have cleared some of my misunderstandings, there is little
> > benefits
> > in using XORG_ENABLE_UNIT_TESTS for such a simple case,
> > unless you foresee a more complex situation in the short term.
> > But nothing wrong in using it either. It helps establishing a pattern.
> > 
> > Using the check_PROGRAMS pattern would most likely ease maintenance and
> > reduce
> > the risk of errors as it would work like most/all other modules.
> > 
> > If there is a need to build the test program in the regular build, it
> > could be moved
> > to the eventcomm dir. The test dir would simply make use of it. There is
> > no obligation
> > for programs to be built in the test dir. 
> 
> answering the other email in this one too:
> 
> check_PROGRAMS are the list of binaries built on 'make check'.
> TESTS are the list of binaries executed on 'make check'
> 
> this is what we currently use in the server. the problem with it is that if
> the checks take a while, people are less inclined to run make check.  the
> result of this is that tests may have build errors until someone who
> actually runs make check notices.
> 
> the reason why i chose noinst_PROGRAMS here is so that the tests 
> built when running 'make', but _executed_ when running 'make check'.
> this avoids the aforementioned build errors in the tests. so yes,
> noinst_PROGRAMS was quite intentional here, and I'm planning to send out a
> similar patch for the server.
> 
> as for the XORG_ENABLE_UNIT_TESTS, I don't mind having it there, it has no
> maintainance requirement and if someone absolutely wants to disable the unit
> tests, so be it. this makes more sense in a long-term approach if tests use
> libraries that may not be available (such as glib) or if the tests require a
> certain setup that may not be available (e.g. running X server).
>  
> Cheers,
>   Peter
> > 
> > > diff --git a/test/Makefile.am b/test/Makefile.am
> > > index 16502ee..0b45a2d 100644
> > > --- a/test/Makefile.am
> > > +++ b/test/Makefile.am
> > > @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
> > > +if ENABLE_UNIT_TESTS
> > >  AM_CPPFLAGS = -I$(top_srcdir)/src
> > >  AM_CFLAGS = $(XORG_CFLAGS) $(CWARNFLAGS)
> > >  fake_syms = fake-symbols.c fake-symbols.h
> > > @@ -10,6 +11,5 @@ eventcomm_test_SOURCES = eventcomm-test.c\
> > >  			 $(fake_syms)
> > >  endif
> > >  
> > > -if ENABLE_UNIT_TESTS
> > >  TESTS = $(noinst_PROGRAMS)
> > >  endif
> 
> 


Reviewed-by: Gaetan Nadon <memsize at videotron.ca>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/attachments/20110323/5193382c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/attachments/20110323/5193382c/attachment.pgp>