From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Barry OReilly Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: running each test file independently in test/automated Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 11:54:22 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87six5neal.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0443044ec502ec04e682373f X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1379346878 31460 80.91.229.3 (16 Sep 2013 15:54:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 15:54:38 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Kenichi Handa Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Sep 16 17:54:42 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VLb8L-0002iG-ET for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 17:54:41 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35891 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VLb8L-0004hT-4Y for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 11:54:41 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48764) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VLb8D-0004h8-H2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 11:54:38 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VLb88-00032t-S0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 11:54:33 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-we0-x232.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c03::232]:49978) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VLb83-00031d-Pi; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 11:54:23 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-we0-f178.google.com with SMTP id u57so3772399wes.23 for ; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 08:54:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=budmqG19ENZanBT5YRbwoMXuZmo70FKIkwYRbWEz6aQ=; b=LKOvAq463CycK2Esf28JNHEwvB2TaZT4V+vhgvbaSzTNQF1U5SCEF1IYLRZGUWeN2H LSxTH3IzodkwonvsVxCIE5XWqweSViKygVoy29IEy9f4NTHfdIvQp9+oOu0Xd+Zx3VMx Gow2uS6cZJbHm7WaRGNdrY28dEcDIbTqR61dXUfmCo6K5GzQ1UMx0tV67ViyvW++v/sY KiNUxPzBcU8EEwrthHv+FcxrzpfsE8lzD+BkHkIEH3MYwIE2F/jLs6HaKO91aJTfwBw1 PD0dsGX92EDks2EQ0mhBkZ7opVeb7WTnyq46shrrZFv8wCFPnPOK5BWhjFM5b2f+awTb vNuQ== X-Received: by 10.180.97.38 with SMTP id dx6mr14048527wib.26.1379346862636; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 08:54:22 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.194.234.234 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 08:54:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87six5neal.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:400c:c03::232 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:163366 Archived-At: --f46d0443044ec502ec04e682373f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > We have to catch an error of byte-compilation, To what end? The individual can see build errors and I presume Hydra reports build failures originating in the Makefile. > but there already exists this target and rule, and I'd like not to > change the original behavior. Doing in ert.el what the Makefile is responsible for seems off to me. If test code build errors are to go in the summary, why shouldn't build errors of the code under test? If incorporating build failures into a summary report is good enough to do, why isn't it good enough for 'make check'? --f46d0443044ec502ec04e682373f Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> We have to catch an error of byte-compilation,
To what end? The individual can see build errors and I presume Hydra
re= ports build failures originating in the Makefile.

> but there alr= eady exists this target and rule, and I'd like not to
> change the original behavior.

Doing in ert.el what the Makefile= is responsible for seems off to me.
If test code build errors are to go= in the summary, why shouldn't
build errors of the code under test? = If incorporating build failures
into a summary report is good enough to do, why isn't it good enoughfor 'make check'?

--f46d0443044ec502ec04e682373f--