dulwich-users team mailing list archive

[Dave Borowitz <dborowitz@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 14:39, Augie Fackler <durin42@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Dec 19, 2010, at 4:32 PM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 2010-12-19 at 13:57 -0800, Dave Borowitz wrote:
> >> AFAIK nose is still canonical, since it's what's in the Makefile. I'm
> >> fine with this provided:
> >> -if no git is installed, tests are still skipped rather than failed
> >> -you rewrite the 'check' make target such that it doesn't run the
> >> non-compat tests twice.
> > FWIW this is how trunk behaves at the moment.
> >
> >> A nice-to-have would be a 'check-nocompat' or similar make target. I
> >> for one do things like run the tests on a bunch of sequential patches,
> >> and it's nice when those take 1s each rather than 10s.
> > Adding a check-nocompat target seems reasonable to me.
>
> As long as it's well documented how to run the tests without all the slow
> ones (for exactly the reason Dave mentions) I'm not going to complain too
> loudly.


Yes, exactly. I should have said "such that it doesn't run the compat tests
twice." I haven't complained about running the non-compat tests twice
because they're so fast, but I wouldn't be too happy if the time doubled.

I might take a look at testr for my own use for parallelization, too. But
there's some inherent slowness in spinning up servers and whatnot such that
even with good parallelization I probably wouldn't want to always run the
compat tests.


> > I use testr for most of my projects, it can e.g. parallelize test runs
> > and re-run only the failing tests from the previous run.
> >
> > % time testr run --parallel
> > ...
> > id=59, tests=423, skips=6
> > testr run --parallel  0.64s user 0.22s system 18% cpu 4.776 total
>
> nose is capable of both of those features, FYI. I've never heard of testr,
> and can't find it on a quick search. Can you provide a link so I can
> explore?
>
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Jelmer
> >
> >> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 13:36, Augie Fackler <durin42@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> https://github.com/jelmer/dulwich/commit/b5490da68052e33b904e32c04f2aef140c8bcb45
> >>
> >>        This means that nose will no longer skip these tests by
> >>        default, which we had historically (as I understood things,
> >>        anyway) wanted. Is nose no longer the canonical way of running
> >>        tests? I thought we didn't want to support test runners
> >>        without discovery support? (I thought unittest2 supported
> >>        discovery...)
> >>
> >>        Thanks,
> >>        Augie
> >>
> >>
> >>        _______________________________________________
> >>        Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dulwich-users
> >>        Post to     : dulwich-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>        Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dulwich-users
> >>        More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>