[SM-Discuss] DevMeet Followup - "It Works"
eric at sandall.us
Sun May 17 19:59:11 EDT 2009
On Sun, 17 May 2009 14:50:19 -0500
Mark Bainter <mbainter-smgl at trampledstones.com> wrote:
> Well, my plans to be present didn't work out, but I am reading through
> the log, and I had a couple of thoughts to share.
> On the topic of an itworks flag, What if we extended sorcery to
> support an additional DETAIL item that would point at either a
> command or a script (maybe with a standardized name) which could be
> run during automated testing, and 'itworks' gets set based on the
> return value from running that?
> For most packages it should be fairly simple to at least try to run
> the primary binary, and make sure it doesn't segfault or throw
> library or other runtime dependency errors that aren't caught by the
> casting itself.
> If there's no pointer, it's just an unknown, but a hard failure or
> hard success at least helps to prioritize issues. And, it shouldn't
> add too much additional labor for most spells, and it would be
> sufficiently flexible that packages that typically break in a given
> set of ways can have tests added to the script for those specific
Instead of a DETAILS value, perhaps another, separate, file would work
better, e.g. <spell>/QA.
This way you can write complex scripts for testing, if needed, without
Eric Sandall | Source Mage GNU/Linux Developer
eric at sandall.us PGP: 0xA8EFDD61 | http://www.sourcemage.org/
http://eric.sandall.us/ | http://counter.li.org/ #196285
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/sm-discuss/attachments/20090517/1e4cf608/attachment.bin
More information about the SM-Discuss