[SM-Discuss] DevMeet Followup - "It Works"
Andraž 'ruskie' Levstik
ruskie at codemages.net
Mon May 18 01:41:13 EDT 2009
> 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 concerns.
As it was said you are offloading an it works to a "runs" check which is
something completely different.
Andraž ruskie Levstik
Source Mage GNU/Linux Games/Xorg grimoire guru
Be sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth.
More information about the SM-Discuss