kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Maciej Sumiński <maciej.suminski@xxxxxxx>]

On 12/07/2016 10:35 AM, Michael Steinberg wrote:
> Hello Orson,
> 
> 
> Am 07.12.2016 um 10:29 schrieb Maciej Sumiński:
>> I used to work with projects that had multiple small unit tests and it
>> was quite neat solution. Do you think it would be much harder to apply
>> the same rules here? If so, I would not mind having one-to-one relation
>> between targets and tests, especially that one can easily separate tests
>> using boost.test judging from the screenshot you posted.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Orson
> That would absolutely be possible, my intention avoiding that on the
> first shot was only that I feared having a full executable link process
> per test/test case might be a bit troublesome in the long run. Did you
> have no problems with that, how many tests were there, did it slow down
> the build process at all? No matter how many test targets we produce,
> CTest will only ever say "passed" or "not passed" for each without any
> further information of what is the cause, if I'm not completely mistaken.
> 
> Michael

Linking against a shared library (e.g. _pcbnew.kiface) should be quick.
Tom has been testing a similar approach [1], though without using CTest,
but it shows the idea.

CTest is able to give extra information once a build fails [2].
Apparently whatever approach we choose we will have more or less the
same information available. I do not really see any exceptional benefit
of one method over the other, so IMHO we can go with whatever is easier
to set up.

Regards,
Orson

1.
https://github.com/twlostow/kicad-dev/commit/bec46081ea3bf0e2862615fc6040a86beda5785f
2. https://cmake.org/cmake/help/v2.8.8/ctest.html#opt%3a--output-on-failure

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature