From: Werner S. <sm...@ia...> - 2006-11-27 10:00:07
|
Hi, > Sorry to pop in at the end of this discussion. When I first implemented > the ctest stuff I wondered about doing away with the scripts and doing > all the work in ctest. Actually using only ctest would be a good idea, especially if we ever use dashboard. > > Advantages: > Should be more platform independent. > You would be able to see at a glance precisely which tests failed rather > than just knowing one of the tests for a given language failed. > > Disadvantages: > More work for me in the first instance. > We want the scripts anyway for installing in the examples tree so users > can test the examples easily. Especially the test for the user is an important point on the other hand. > > The scripts are not terribly sophisticated on the whole. The most > important requirement is just to set the right paths for libraries etc. > Perhaps a batch file will do. At least we know that will run on every > windows system then. I also think it's no problem to write a windows batch file. The CLI is actually quite capable ( http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/cmd.mspx?mfr=true ), but it's not bash ;). And we would have to maintain two versions of the test, a unix and a windows one. Using python or jim (which actually looks very interesting, Arjen) would mean to only maintain one version. I actually have no strong opinion here, using win-bash and so on is definitely the least wanted, since problematic. Werner -- Dipl. Ing. Werner Smekal Institut fuer Allgemeine Physik Technische Universitaet Wien Wiedner Hauptstr 8-10 A-1040 Wien Austria email: sm...@ia... web: http://www.iap.tuwien.ac.at/~smekal phone: +43-(0)1-58801-13463 (office) +43-(0)1-58801-13469 (laboratory) fax: +43-(0)1-58801-13499 |