From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: master 262d0c6: Mark some tests as expensive Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2020 15:29:06 +0300 Message-ID: <83363ndvql.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20200910182904.20559.25935@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20200910182905.F0E4520A2E@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <877dt0is0p.fsf@gmx.de> <83a6xve0vq.fsf@gnu.org> <87a6xv456t.fsf@gnus.org> <837dszdyqv.fsf@gnu.org> <877dsz2o03.fsf@gnus.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="37602"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: stefan@marxist.se, emacs-devel@gnu.org, michael.albinus@gmx.de, mardani29@yahoo.es To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Sep 12 14:32:01 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kH4hF-0009ek-FI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 12 Sep 2020 14:32:01 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50052 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kH4hE-0002Ma-CL for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 12 Sep 2020 08:32:00 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:36766) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kH4eU-0000KK-Lj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Sep 2020 08:29:10 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:34645) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kH4eT-00072b-IX; Sat, 12 Sep 2020 08:29:09 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=3214 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1kH4eS-0006N1-M5; Sat, 12 Sep 2020 08:29:09 -0400 In-Reply-To: <877dsz2o03.fsf@gnus.org> (message from Lars Ingebrigtsen on Sat, 12 Sep 2020 14:11:40 +0200) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:255325 Archived-At: > From: Lars Ingebrigtsen > Cc: mardani29@yahoo.es, michael.albinus@gmx.de, stefan@marxist.se, > emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2020 14:11:40 +0200 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > How will that work if the change was in Tramp, or was related to > > Tramp? In my case, for example, it would most probably mean none of > > the Tramp tests will ever run at all, because they all take more than > > 1 sec down here. > > > > Also, there are some tests with inherent delays (auto-revert tests are > > one example, but there are others) -- would that mean we don't run > > these, either? > > Yes, if they take more than a second to run. So how do we make sure some change didn't introduce a bug in those features? > We've already made this decision with all the tests previously marked as > expensive, so there's nothing new here. There's a large gap between what is currently marked as "expensive" tests and having entire packages not tested at all. The latter sounds too radical to me. E.g., auto-revert is an important feature, used by many people. Not having it in regression testing sounds like a step backward to me. > > What I do for a "fast test" use case is to run only the tests directly > > related to the change, usually the FOO-tests.el tests that correspond > > to the file FOO I've changed. Sometimes, there are related tests in > > other files as well. A simple "make FOO-tests" command is all that's > > needed. > > I do that, too, when working on something specific. But being able to > say "make check" gives me greater confidence that I've not messed up > something in a related area (and let's face it, the entirety of Emacs is > "a related area" :-)). I'm talking about a balance here. Losing the tests of complete features just because we want tests to finish quickly sounds sub-optimal to me. Can we make a smarter balance? After all, what matters is not how long a single test runs, but how long the entire suite runs. Having a few tests that take more than a second doesn't necessarily enlarge the total time significantly, especially since quite a few of the tests are much shorter. So maybe a better criterion would be the time it takes to run the entire suite?