Re: [AMBER-Developers] NAB tests

From: case <>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 15:53:23 -0500

On Mon, Mar 01, 2010, Ben Roberts wrote:
> In a supplement to the recent flurry of emails about test scripts, in
> my sandbox I've gone through and rewritten the NAB tests to use run
> scripts and dacdif. Thus, the output is more standardised, and the run
> scripts also call a "program error" type function in the event of an
> actual failure (previously, they would just report that the outputs
> were different).

Good...this is something that I have wanted to do for some time.
But (see below), why don't you just update the Makefile instead to use
dacdif rather than diff? That seems to me to the cleaner way to proceed.

> A potential downside here is that the actual differences are no longer
> printed to STDOUT, per dacdif's way of doing things. Another potential
> downside is that dacdif is doing things I don't entirely expect, and
> that important differences are thereby being skipped.

I'll take a look once things are checked in; but I don't expect any bad
side effects...

> A third risk is: what environment variables are needed? In the run
> scripts, BINDIR, NABFLAGS and SFX are clearly required. They are
> passed from the nab Makefile, but aren't available independently,
> because the Makefile in turn gets them from src/config.h. Also, does
> NAB expect any environment variables to be present, and is that why a
> run script approach has previously been avoided?

But lots of make files import variables from config.h, e.g. both Makefile
and Makefile_at in amber11/test. Why is it any less desirable here than
elsewhere? Since things like the "" scripts go through
make to do their work, I guess I don't see the problem here(?).


AMBER-Developers mailing list
Received on Mon Mar 01 2010 - 13:00:02 PST
Custom Search