On 26/02/2010, at 8:05 PM, Gustavo Seabra wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 9:48 PM, Ben Roberts <roberts.qtp.ufl.edu>
> wrote:
>> OK. Steps I've taken so far in my working copy:
>>
>> 1. Make sure that any "make" command in a Makefile is actually
>> executed as
>> "make -k". This change affects two or three statements that I've
>> found.
>
> Great. Is that a change to the Makefile or is it in the script? That
> alone solves most of the problems. If it works fine, I'd say check
> that in.
I made a handful of changes to Makefiles (where one Makefile calls
another). In general, however, I put the "make -k" in the scripts.
Changes to Makefiles have been uploaded, as have the scripts themselves.
>
>> 2. Prepare the aforementioned scripts.
>
> Myself, I'd still recommend awk. With awk, we can do more, like
> finding separators (like the "-------" lines, and then looking for the
> "PASSED" betwen them, etc. It gives us a lot more flexibility then
> trying to fix every test. Also, tests that fail with segfaults, for
> example, don't always print the "POSSIBLE FAILURE" statement, so we
> need to look for other stuff. Awk allows you to make a easier to use
> counter, save data about the failed tests, etc. If you want, I can
> take a look at it later, after you check in what you already have.
That would be appreciated. Since I don't know my way around awk very
well, I would like to leave it to those (such as yourself) who do.
>
>> I haven't committed any of these changes yet. Is it appropriate to
>> do so?
>> I'm not quite sure how much boiler-busting will be involved, or
>> whether this
>> change counts as a new and poorly tested feature.
>
> Most of the changes don't change anything for other users, except the
> Makefile changes (if that's how you have done it) that will make sure
> they don't get the annoying errors they have been getting, so I'd say
> check them in.
>
> This is great stuff Ben, thanks a lot!
No problem. I hope it all works properly.
As an aside, in my personal opinion, it would be helpful if all tests
behave consistently - so that the same result generates the same
report. But even apart from the feature freeze, I agree that sorting
them out definitely falls into the "rainy day project" category.
Having said that, enforcing consistency across the tests may be easier
than trying to write awk commands to cover every contingency. What are
your thoughts?
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Fri Feb 26 2010 - 22:00:04 PST
