From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pjotr Prins Subject: Re: Treating tests as special case Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 18:41:58 +0200 Message-ID: <20180405164158.GA965@thebird.nl> References: <20180405052439.GA30291@thebird.nl> <87efjuj6f2.fsf@elephly.net> <87efjtzqo4.fsf@gnu.org> <20180405145929.GA345@thebird.nl> <87vad5y8v7.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55352) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f4820-00069Z-7b for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2018 12:46:37 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f481v-0006Yu-9l for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2018 12:46:36 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87vad5y8v7.fsf@gnu.org> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?= Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 05:24:12PM +0200, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > Pjotr Prins skribis: >=20 > > I am *not* suggesting we stop testing and stop writing tests. They ar= e > > extremely important for integration (thought we could do with a lot > > less and more focussed integration tests - ref Hickey). What I am > > writing is that we don't have to rerun tests for everyone *once* they > > succeed *somewhere*. If you have a successful reproducible build and > > tests on a platform there is really no point in rerunning tests > > everywhere for the exact same setup. It is a nice property of our FP > > approach. Proof that it is not necessary is the fact that we > > distribute substitute binaries without running tests there. What I am > > proposing in essence is 'substitute tests'.=20 >=20 > Understood. >=20 > > If tests are so important to rerun: tell me why we are not running > > tests when substituting binaries? >=20 > Because you have a substitute if and only those tests already passed > somewhere. This is exactly the property we=E2=80=99re interested in, r= ight? Yup. Problem is substitutes go away. We don't retain them and I often encounter that use case. Providing test-substitutes is much lighter and can be retained forever. When tests ever pass on a build server, we don't have to repeat them. That is my story. Pj.