You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@stdcxx.apache.org by Andrew Black <ab...@roguewave.com> on 2007/08/23 19:48:26 UTC
Exec utility test group reporting
Greetings all.
Attached is a patch that aims to add some logic to the exec utility to
report the type of executable being processed. Part of the purpose of
this change is to assist in making the result parsing more robust.
I am not particularly satisfied with this change for a couple reasons.
One is because the doxygen comments are getting out of date, and need to
be gone over. The second is the way data is passed from cmdopt.cpp to
display.cpp. The current method used is to overload the target_opts
struct to include the new parameter, but this feels like the wrong way
to do things. This method was chosen because the verbose flag is
currently included there, but the exec subsystem shouldn't care about
either of these things. (The verbose output mode also feels like it was
hacked on, but that's irrelevant to this topic.)
Does anyone have thoughts on this patch? I should note that some
changes to the windows infrastructure will be needed to keep the
behavior in sync with the unix infrastructure.
--Andrew Black
Re: Exec utility test group reporting
Posted by Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com>.
Andrew Black wrote:
> Greetings all.
>
> Attached is a patch that aims to add some logic to the exec utility to
> report the type of executable being processed. Part of the purpose of
> this change is to assist in making the result parsing more robust.
>
> I am not particularly satisfied with this change for a couple reasons.
> One is because the doxygen comments are getting out of date, and need to
> be gone over.
For some reason, I happened to be thinking about the Doxygen
comments in the test driver recently. My feeling is that we
should either use them consistently and start using Doxygen
to generate docs for the test driver or change then to ordinary
comments. I see no point in (not) maintaining them for just
a handful of files.
> The second is the way data is passed from cmdopt.cpp to
> display.cpp. The current method used is to overload the target_opts
> struct to include the new parameter, but this feels like the wrong way
> to do things. This method was chosen because the verbose flag is
> currently included there, but the exec subsystem shouldn't care about
> either of these things. (The verbose output mode also feels like it was
> hacked on, but that's irrelevant to this topic.)
I agree. I don't like it either. Seems to me that we're lumping
two unrelated things together: global options for the whole utility
(e.g., the verbosity setting) and options (potentially) specific to
each target. I think it would be worthwhile to split them up. If
you think that's a reasonable solution and a manageable project
I'm in favor of implementing it.
>
> Does anyone have thoughts on this patch? I should note that some
> changes to the windows infrastructure will be needed to keep the
> behavior in sync with the unix infrastructure.
It looks okay to me (modulo the above, and a few minor formatting
issues -- please double check your spaces).
Martin
Re: Exec utility test group reporting
Posted by Andrew Black <ab...@roguewave.com>.
Mark Brown wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ablack@roguewave.com
>> Sent: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 09:11:51 -0600
>> To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Exec utility test group reporting
>>
>> Greetings Mark
>>
>> At this point, the validity, usability and accuracy of the Doxygen
>> comments in the exec utility is a theoretical exercise, as I don't think
>> anyone's ever taken the step of generating the documentation pages from
>> the source files. That said, I've installed doxygen locally, and will
>> share the results if I have time to play with it.
>
> Well, I tried generating documentation for the stdcxx/util directory to see how Doxygen does. The result is published on my home page: http://mark.g.brown.googlepages.com/stdcxxutil. This is my first attempt to use the site so pardon the appearance of the entry page. In my opinion, it doesn't look half bad, don't you think?
Ascetically the pages look decent (with the exception of a 404 on
http://mark.g.brown.googlepages.com/structtarget__opts.html ), however
they feel a little light on content. Is there a switch to get doxygen
to generate the documentation for variables and functions outside of
classes? The bulk of the documentation for the exec utility is in these
areas, rather than the structs which are used to pass data around. (Is
there a C mode that you could force doxygen to use? The exec utility
was written as a C program, though the files were given a .cpp suffix so
they could build with the infrastructure.)
>
>> It would likely make sense to eventually store the generated docs
>> somewhere in subversion, but the potential problem of documentation
>> drift exists. I suppose this shouldn't count as a strike against using
>> Doxygen, as that potential exists for all documentation.
>
> Would generating the documentation automatically be a solution?
That would be a solution, but as best I can tell, you'd have to do the
regeneration on the subversion server as part of a commit script, and I
don't know if we have the ability to set such things up.
--Andrew Black
Re: Exec utility test group reporting
Posted by Mark Brown <mb...@inbox.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ablack@roguewave.com
> Sent: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 09:11:51 -0600
> To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Exec utility test group reporting
>
> Greetings Mark
>
> At this point, the validity, usability and accuracy of the Doxygen
> comments in the exec utility is a theoretical exercise, as I don't think
> anyone's ever taken the step of generating the documentation pages from
> the source files. That said, I've installed doxygen locally, and will
> share the results if I have time to play with it.
Well, I tried generating documentation for the stdcxx/util directory to see how Doxygen does. The result is published on my home page: http://mark.g.brown.googlepages.com/stdcxxutil. This is my first attempt to use the site so pardon the appearance of the entry page. In my opinion, it doesn't look half bad, don't you think?
>
> It would likely make sense to eventually store the generated docs
> somewhere in subversion, but the potential problem of documentation
> drift exists. I suppose this shouldn't count as a strike against using
> Doxygen, as that potential exists for all documentation.
Would generating the documentation automatically be a solution?
-- Mark
>
> --Andrew Black
>
> Mark Brown wrote:
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> I found myself needing documentation for the test driver in the past.
>> Since you mentioned Doxygen comments in the exec utility, I'm wondering
>> if there is generated documentation available somewhere that I don't
>> know about. Could you point me in the right direction?
>>
>> Many thanks!
>> -- Mark
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ablack@roguewave.com
>>> Sent: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 11:48:26 -0600
>>> To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Exec utility test group reporting
>>>
>>> Greetings all.
>>>
>>> Attached is a patch that aims to add some logic to the exec utility to
>>> report the type of executable being processed. Part of the purpose of
>>> this change is to assist in making the result parsing more robust.
>>>
>>> I am not particularly satisfied with this change for a couple reasons.
>>> One is because the doxygen comments are getting out of date, and need
>>> to
>>> be gone over. The second is the way data is passed from cmdopt.cpp to
>>> display.cpp. The current method used is to overload the target_opts
>>> struct to include the new parameter, but this feels like the wrong way
>>> to do things. This method was chosen because the verbose flag is
>>> currently included there, but the exec subsystem shouldn't care about
>>> either of these things. (The verbose output mode also feels like it
>>> was
>>> hacked on, but that's irrelevant to this topic.)
>>>
>>> Does anyone have thoughts on this patch? I should note that some
>>> changes to the windows infrastructure will be needed to keep the
>>> behavior in sync with the unix infrastructure.
>>>
>>> --Andrew Black
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> KEEP SPYWARE OFF YOUR COMPUTER - Protect your computer with Spyware
>> Terminator!
>> Visit http://www.spywareterminator.com/install and find out more!
____________________________________________________________
FREE 3D MARINE AQUARIUM SCREENSAVER - Watch dolphins, sharks & orcas on your desktop!
Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/marineaquarium
Re: Exec utility test group reporting
Posted by Andrew Black <ab...@roguewave.com>.
Greetings Mark
At this point, the validity, usability and accuracy of the Doxygen
comments in the exec utility is a theoretical exercise, as I don't think
anyone's ever taken the step of generating the documentation pages from
the source files. That said, I've installed doxygen locally, and will
share the results if I have time to play with it.
It would likely make sense to eventually store the generated docs
somewhere in subversion, but the potential problem of documentation
drift exists. I suppose this shouldn't count as a strike against using
Doxygen, as that potential exists for all documentation.
--Andrew Black
Mark Brown wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> I found myself needing documentation for the test driver in the past. Since you mentioned Doxygen comments in the exec utility, I'm wondering if there is generated documentation available somewhere that I don't know about. Could you point me in the right direction?
>
> Many thanks!
> -- Mark
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ablack@roguewave.com
>> Sent: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 11:48:26 -0600
>> To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Exec utility test group reporting
>>
>> Greetings all.
>>
>> Attached is a patch that aims to add some logic to the exec utility to
>> report the type of executable being processed. Part of the purpose of
>> this change is to assist in making the result parsing more robust.
>>
>> I am not particularly satisfied with this change for a couple reasons.
>> One is because the doxygen comments are getting out of date, and need to
>> be gone over. The second is the way data is passed from cmdopt.cpp to
>> display.cpp. The current method used is to overload the target_opts
>> struct to include the new parameter, but this feels like the wrong way
>> to do things. This method was chosen because the verbose flag is
>> currently included there, but the exec subsystem shouldn't care about
>> either of these things. (The verbose output mode also feels like it was
>> hacked on, but that's irrelevant to this topic.)
>>
>> Does anyone have thoughts on this patch? I should note that some
>> changes to the windows infrastructure will be needed to keep the
>> behavior in sync with the unix infrastructure.
>>
>> --Andrew Black
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> KEEP SPYWARE OFF YOUR COMPUTER - Protect your computer with Spyware Terminator!
> Visit http://www.spywareterminator.com/install and find out more!
RE: Exec utility test group reporting
Posted by Mark Brown <mb...@inbox.com>.
Hi Andrew,
I found myself needing documentation for the test driver in the past. Since you mentioned Doxygen comments in the exec utility, I'm wondering if there is generated documentation available somewhere that I don't know about. Could you point me in the right direction?
Many thanks!
-- Mark
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ablack@roguewave.com
> Sent: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 11:48:26 -0600
> To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Exec utility test group reporting
>
> Greetings all.
>
> Attached is a patch that aims to add some logic to the exec utility to
> report the type of executable being processed. Part of the purpose of
> this change is to assist in making the result parsing more robust.
>
> I am not particularly satisfied with this change for a couple reasons.
> One is because the doxygen comments are getting out of date, and need to
> be gone over. The second is the way data is passed from cmdopt.cpp to
> display.cpp. The current method used is to overload the target_opts
> struct to include the new parameter, but this feels like the wrong way
> to do things. This method was chosen because the verbose flag is
> currently included there, but the exec subsystem shouldn't care about
> either of these things. (The verbose output mode also feels like it was
> hacked on, but that's irrelevant to this topic.)
>
> Does anyone have thoughts on this patch? I should note that some
> changes to the windows infrastructure will be needed to keep the
> behavior in sync with the unix infrastructure.
>
> --Andrew Black
____________________________________________________________
KEEP SPYWARE OFF YOUR COMPUTER - Protect your computer with Spyware Terminator!
Visit http://www.spywareterminator.com/install and find out more!