On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Gerald Monard <
Gerald.Monard.univ-lorraine.fr> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> For the development/maintenance of the SEBOMD part and the QUICK part (=
> ab initio code from Kennie's group) in AmberTools, I would like to set
> up some tests that could be (very) time consuming. These would be mostly
> regression tests to ensure that what is developed doesn't break anything.
>
> Given that the current test/ directory (AmberTools+Amber) is ~2 Gbytes
> and that what I will add should not be of any use for a non-developer, I
> think it would be wiser to put my tests somewhere else.
>
> What I suggest is to create a reg-test/ directory (or any name that
> suits you) in Amber that would not be part of the distribution and that
> could serve for development testing. I would keep (for SEBOMD and
> quick), only relevant tests to ensure a proper compilation for the users
> and move the rest to this directory.
>
> Is this OK for you all?
>
I would personally vote to put it in the test/ directory for the following
reasons:
- If they are too big to include in the tarball, the test directory
containing them can be easily added to the tarball exclusion list so it's
omitted from the tarball (just as easily as if it was 'sequestered').
- If they are not too big to include, they could serve as nice examples for
people wanting to use the functionality.
- Keeps things simpler -- how does a new developer decide what goes into
"reg-test" vs "test"?
- If it is not explicitly added to default rules in the Makefile, it will
not be run by default (and so will not bog down everybody's standard
testing)
(So I guess my reasons for keeping things in test/ is a lack of reasons for
*not* keeping things in test/ :-])
Just my 2c,
Jason
--
Jason M. Swails
BioMaPS,
Rutgers University
Postdoctoral Researcher
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Wed Jan 28 2015 - 07:00:03 PST
