States of tests

[Mark Atwood]

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 9:42 AM Amar Takhar <verm at darkbeer.org> wrote:

> On 2015-11-25 17:35 +0000, Mark Atwood wrote:
> > Ah, I misunderstood.
> >
> > So, the state we are in now is:
> > - All the tests run?
> > - All the test pass?
>
> When you say "all" yes all the ones converted run and pass -- with
> exception to a
> few which I will get back to later they've been commented out.
>

Ok.  Why were they commented out?  Did we comment them out, or were they
commented out in NTP Classic?

|> Why a new test suite?  What are you converting the current one into?

>
> The old test suite used Google Test which is C++.  The development model
> of the
> project changed to one incompatible with the project.  Right now I am
> converting
> it all to C using Unity.
>

Ok.  Expand that a bit for me, please.   The development model of the
Google Test project changed to one incompatible with the NTPsec project?
Or the development model of the NTPsec project changed to one incompatible
with the Google Test project?

I am inclined agree to want the tests in standard C99 C instead of C++, but
also it needs to bring a value-add, such as making it easier for non-core
contributors to write new tests and run them.


> The 'new' test suite involves re-arranging it into a more suitable format
> to
> edit and test.  We need to be setup better for regression testing as well.
>
> It's complicated since the C++ code uses classes and function overloading
> which
> is going to require a lot of refactoring.  I'm leaving these ones to the
> end
>
> From the old C++ tests it's about 60% complete conversion wise.  I'll
> hopefully
> have this done 'soon' barring any strangeness which I've already hit..
>
>

Ok.  Do please email to devel at ntpsec.org each time you convert another
test, and what the test was that you converted.

I'm pushing really hard on the tests because getting all the tests running
is a good marker for 0.9.1, and also once we have that working, I'm going
to ask you to go back and start the work to waf-ify the fork point and
forward, so we can get bisect to work.

Thanks!

..m
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ntpsec.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20151125/0aa51c61/attachment.html>