Source-Changes-D archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: CVS commit: src/tests/kernel




To: source-changes-d%NetBSD.org@localhost

Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/tests/kernel

From: Julio Merino <jmmv%NetBSD.org@localhost>

Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 19:13:24 +0100


On 5/31/11 7:06 PM, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:

On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 04:53:21PM +0100, Julio Merino wrote:

One thing is reorganizing the tests to match the tree structure, but the
other is to move the tests right next to the source


I don't quite understand the latter part. Why is this a bad thing?

I always thought that having a single unified "tests"-directory was a
benefit, not a disadvantage.


What is the advantage? Just to m
ake things clear, tests would still be  installed to /usr/tests so that they can all be run at once.

> Moving the tests "right next to the source"

does not really solve any of the questions; for instance, where would
system calls go? libc? sys/kern?


Just like for manpages, it makes
 sense in some cases and it doesn't in  others.

I don't think it'd
 be bad to keep cross-layer/tool tests in a src/tests  directory but move anything that is clearly tool-specific next to the  source.

(It's much easier for people 
to edit a cp_test.c file when they are  editing cp.c if they see the file right there, whereas it is  easy/annoying to have to hunt down the test file in a different subtree.  I've used/seen both approaches, if that matters at all.)

--
Julio Merino / @jmmv


References:

Re: CVS commit: src/tests/kernel
From: Julio Merino

Re: CVS commit: src/tests/kernel
From: Jukka Ruohonen




Prev by Date: Re: CVS commit: src/tests/kernel

Next by Date: re: CVS commit: src/sys/dev/raidframe

Previous by Thread: Re: CVS commit: src/tests/kernel

Next by Thread: Re: CVS commit: src/tests/syscall

Indexes:

reverse Date

reverse Thread

Old Index



Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index