Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us>]

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
> concerns.
> 

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
exploding DETAILS.

-sandalle

-- 
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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature