Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] DevMeet Followup - "It Works"

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] DevMeet Followup - "It Works"
  • Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 16:59:11 -0700

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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page