Re: [RFC PATCH] Makefile: new prove target for running the tests with TAP

From: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>
Date: Oct 14, 2010, 09:21 UTC
Message-ID: <4CB6CB97.7040009@drmicha.warpmail.net>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimuoanpbFbyv9C8qUbut22me1gMhH02eLqg0Nyd@mail.gmail.com>

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason venit, vidit, dixit 14.10.2010 11:05:

Show 35 quoted lines

> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 08:53, Michael J Gruber
> <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> wrote:
>> Introduce a new make target "prove" which runs the tests via "prove" (or
>> $(PROVE) if set) so that one does not have to cd around any more. One
>> can simply use "make prove" for "make test" or go wild as in:
>>
>> GIT_SKIP_TESTS='t[0-4]??? t91?? t9200.8' GIT_PROVE_OPTS="-j9 -v" GIT_TEST_OPTS="--verbose --debug" make prove
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>
>> ---
>> RFC also because of lack of doc, and:
>>
>> Currently, one can do
>>
>> make -C t t6010-merge-base.sh
>>
>> or even
>>
>> make -C t t601*
>>
>> which is cool but undocumented. If we want this with prove it requires more
>> effort, or shoving prove into the $(T) target rule which is doable, of course.
>> I'm just wondering whether it's accepted to introduce a specific rule for prove
>> at all.
> 
> I like the rationale behind this, but fwiw. I already had a patch that
> was ejected for this:
> 
>     http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/146566
> 
> Quoth Junio:
> 
>     "Besides, "make -j15 test" from the toplevel already runs the
>     tests in parallel.  I don't see much point in this change."
>

Sorry for the kind of dupe then. Though I can understand that the fixed options back then didn't find Junio's approval. Maybe it's different now, when it's completely interchangeable with make test?

Show 7 quoted lines

> But I'd like to have it so that I could `make && make test_harness`
> and get readable test output.
> 
> But we should probably be using t/harness to run them, not
> prove(1). Then we would make the test_harness target respect the
> HARNESS_OPTIONS variable, which I e.g. have set to HARNESS_OPTIONS=j9
> on my system.

Didn't know about that one either. What does t/harness differently/better from/than prove? Does it take the same options? Is t/harness respecting the SHELL_PATH for the tests? Running a test under make test and make prove/harness needs to be completely equivalent.

Michael