The behavior of "make check"

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

The behavior of "make check"

Dan Eble
Begin forwarded message:
>
> Subject: [testlilyissues:issues] Re: #5564 Fix conversion warnings in beaming code
> Date: October 10, 2019 at 12:08:48 EDT
> I'm sorry to contribute to your frustration. I can see what the process is, but my question (which I direct to LilyPond developers in general) is whether it is justified that make check run to completion using an out-of-date lilypond rather than either rebuilding it first or raising some kind of alarm. Must we continue to put up with it?
>
> The purpose of make is to follow dependencies and do exactly what needs to be done. The difference in behavior between these cases seems contrary to that:
>
> make && make check
> make check

Dan

_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The behavior of "make check"

Carl Sorensen-3
Given that make will not do anything if the source tree has not been changed, I see no problem (and plenty of benefit) in having make check do the equivalent of make && make check.

Personally, however, I prefer to do

make
make check

rather than

make && make check

because I want to see my build errors separately from any regression test errors.  So even if make check became equivalent to make && make check, I would continue to use the commands separately.

It seems to me to be not worth the effort to raise an alarm and then quit.

Thanks,

Carl


On 10/10/19, 10:44 AM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of Dan Eble" <lilypond-devel-bounces+c_sorensen=[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:

    Begin forwarded message:
    >
    > Subject: [testlilyissues:issues] Re: #5564 Fix conversion warnings in beaming code
    > Date: October 10, 2019 at 12:08:48 EDT
    > I'm sorry to contribute to your frustration. I can see what the process is, but my question (which I direct to LilyPond developers in general) is whether it is justified that make check run to completion using an out-of-date lilypond rather than either rebuilding it first or raising some kind of alarm. Must we continue to put up with it?
    >
    > The purpose of make is to follow dependencies and do exactly what needs to be done. The difference in behavior between these cases seems contrary to that:
    >
    > make && make check
    > make check
    —
    Dan
   
    _______________________________________________
    lilypond-devel mailing list
    [hidden email]
    https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
   

_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The behavior of "make check"

James Lowe-3


On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 16:51:56 +0000, Carl Sorensen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Given that make will not do anything if the source tree has not been changed, I see no problem (and plenty of benefit) in having make check do the equivalent of make && make check.
>
> Personally, however, I prefer to do
>
> make
> make check
>
> rather than
>
> make && make check

Yes. Especially with testing patches. Sometimes a developer submits a patch without doing basic make (or they end up submitting a patch from their 'own' tree that breaks make on current master), so having two distinct make commands helps me help them determine the patch error.

(if that is where we were going with this).

James


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel