You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@stdcxx.apache.org by Mark Brown <mb...@inbox.com> on 2007/03/14 21:42:28 UTC
Re: [jira] Closed: (STDCXX-16) __rb_tree::operator=() does not
store rhs' comparison object in lhs
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sebor@roguewave.com
> Sent: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:44:27 -0700
> To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [jira] Closed: (STDCXX-16) __rb_tree::operator=() does not
> store rhs' comparison object in lhs
>
> Farid Zaripov (JIRA) wrote:
>> [
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-16?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
>> ]
>>
>> Farid Zaripov closed STDCXX-16.
>> -------------------------------
>>
>>
>>> __rb_tree::operator=() does not store rhs' comparison object in lhs
>
> Do we have a test in the test suite that exercises this? If not,
> the status should stay Resolved until one has been added.
>
> As we discussed previously, I think it would be useful to start
> adding small test cases corresponding to each Jira issue to our
> regression test suite. Those would be in addition to the general
> tests that already are or will be put in place (duplication of
> tested functionality would be possible).
>
> I propose tests/regress/stdcxx-NNN as the directory and file
> naming convention for these new tests.
>
> Comments?
I like how the existing tests are organized by sections in the standard. When working on for example vector, it's easy to run just the container tests without having to worry about all the other tests. If the regression tests are in a separate directory people will need to remember to build and run them in addition to those for whatever it is they happen to be working on. Would it be possible to put the regression tests in the same directories as the other tests for the same components?
-- Mark
____________________________________________________________
KEEP SPYWARE OFF YOUR COMPUTER - Protect your computer with Spyware Terminator!
Visit http://www.spywareterminator.com/install and find out more!
Re: [VOTE] Re: regression test suite naming convention
Posted by Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com>.
Andrew Black wrote:
> Martin Sebor wrote:
>> Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> I also like option (3) best, so sounds like the home for
>>> the new regression tests is unanimously in tests/regress/
>>>
>>> The remaining question is the file name convention. Do we
>>> go with <section-number>.stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp or do
>>> we allow things like:
>>>
>>> <section-number>.<dot-clause>.stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp
>>>
>>> e.g., 23.vector.cons.stdcxx-123.cpp
>>>
>>> FWIW, I see no reason not to allow it since it provides
>>> additional useful detail.
>>
>> One thing occurred to me with this convention that might be somewhat
>> of an issue: the file name can be quite long and might exceed the
>> width of the first column in the table formatted by the exec utility.
>> If exec strips characters that exceed the width of the column like
>> runall did we could either remove the "stdcxx" part of the file name
>> or modify exec to extend the width of the column to fit the longest
>> file name. Andrew, how hard do you think it would be to change exec
>> to do the latter?
>
> Greetings Martin.
>
> While it wouldn't be trivial to modify the exec utility to automatically
> calculate the width of the first column, it would be a straightforward
> change. Basically, prior to running the targets, you'd need to loop
> through the list of targets, and determine the length of the longest
> name. Once this value has been determined, you can use it in formatting
> the column width.
I'm concerned about arguments that are interspersed with options,
e.g., like this:
exec --foo short-name --bar long-file-name.
POSIX doesn't allow this but maybe our exec does as an extension?
If so, parsing this correctly would be complicated by options with
arguments, such as:
exec --foo short-name --bar bars_argument long-file-name
Martin
>
> My only concern with dropping the 'stdcxx' part of the name is there
> might be a desire to include regression tests from other bug tracking
> systems. However, we'd probably want to copy such incidents into Jira,
> rendering this concern moot.
>
> --Andrew Black
Re: [VOTE] Re: regression test suite naming convention
Posted by Andrew Black <ab...@roguewave.com>.
Martin Sebor wrote:
> Martin Sebor wrote:
>> I also like option (3) best, so sounds like the home for
>> the new regression tests is unanimously in tests/regress/
>>
>> The remaining question is the file name convention. Do we
>> go with <section-number>.stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp or do
>> we allow things like:
>>
>> <section-number>.<dot-clause>.stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp
>>
>> e.g., 23.vector.cons.stdcxx-123.cpp
>>
>> FWIW, I see no reason not to allow it since it provides
>> additional useful detail.
>
> One thing occurred to me with this convention that might be somewhat
> of an issue: the file name can be quite long and might exceed the
> width of the first column in the table formatted by the exec utility.
> If exec strips characters that exceed the width of the column like
> runall did we could either remove the "stdcxx" part of the file name
> or modify exec to extend the width of the column to fit the longest
> file name. Andrew, how hard do you think it would be to change exec
> to do the latter?
Greetings Martin.
While it wouldn't be trivial to modify the exec utility to automatically
calculate the width of the first column, it would be a straightforward
change. Basically, prior to running the targets, you'd need to loop
through the list of targets, and determine the length of the longest
name. Once this value has been determined, you can use it in formatting
the column width.
My only concern with dropping the 'stdcxx' part of the name is there
might be a desire to include regression tests from other bug tracking
systems. However, we'd probably want to copy such incidents into Jira,
rendering this concern moot.
--Andrew Black
Re: [VOTE] Re: regression test suite naming convention
Posted by Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com>.
Martin Sebor wrote:
> I also like option (3) best, so sounds like the home for
> the new regression tests is unanimously in tests/regress/
>
> The remaining question is the file name convention. Do we
> go with <section-number>.stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp or do
> we allow things like:
>
> <section-number>.<dot-clause>.stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp
>
> e.g., 23.vector.cons.stdcxx-123.cpp
>
> FWIW, I see no reason not to allow it since it provides
> additional useful detail.
One thing occurred to me with this convention that might be somewhat
of an issue: the file name can be quite long and might exceed the
width of the first column in the table formatted by the exec utility.
If exec strips characters that exceed the width of the column like
runall did we could either remove the "stdcxx" part of the file name
or modify exec to extend the width of the column to fit the longest
file name. Andrew, how hard do you think it would be to change exec
to do the latter?
Martin
>
> Martin
>
> Mark Brown wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ablack@roguewave.com
>>> Sent: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 09:56:30 -0600
>>> To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Re: regression test suite naming convention
>>>
>>> If we constrain ourselves to the proposed options, my vote is for Option
>>> 2. The reason for this vote is because it allows us to more easily
>>> determine what regression tests need to be run for a particular change.
>>>
>>> If we don't constrain ourselves to the proposed options, I wish to put
>>> forward an additional option.
>>>
>>> Option 3:
>>> Put all regression tests in tests/regress/, using the following
>>> naming convention:
>>> tests/regress/<section-number>.stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp
>>>
>>> This option would allow us to quickly locate all regression tests, and
>>> identify which section each regression test applies to without
>>> consulting Jira.
>>
>> I also think this option is better than the one I suggested. I suppose
>> the file name could include even more specific detail than just the
>> section number such as the name of the container or the member
>> function, like vector.cons and so on.
>>
>> -- Mark
>>
>>
>>
>>> --Andrew Black
>>>
>>> Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>> I'm not hearing any yay's or nay's on the proposed convention
>>>> so how about a vote to practice our consensus building skills?
>>>> Everyone is encouraged to vote, including non-committers.
>>>>
>>>> Option 1:
>>>> Put all regression tests in tests/regress/, naming each as
>>>> follows:
>>>> tests/regress/stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp
>>>>
>>>> Option 2:
>>>> Mix regression tests in with the rest based on the clause
>>>> in the standard and name each according to the following
>>>> formula:
>>>> tests/<section>/<section-number>.stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>
[VOTE RESULT] Re: regression test suite naming convention
Posted by Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com>.
I realized that we never closed this vote. Re-reading the thread
in the archive pretty much everyone was in favor of what's being
referred to as option (3) below with no objections to the
enhancement to add more detail after the section number so the
convention to follow is as follows:
<section-number>.<dot-clause>.stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp
with the dot-clause being optional if the test doesn't correspond
to a single specific clause.
For the record, the vote thread starts here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg02920.html
Martin
Martin Sebor wrote:
> I also like option (3) best, so sounds like the home for
> the new regression tests is unanimously in tests/regress/
>
> The remaining question is the file name convention. Do we
> go with <section-number>.stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp or do
> we allow things like:
>
> <section-number>.<dot-clause>.stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp
>
> e.g., 23.vector.cons.stdcxx-123.cpp
>
> FWIW, I see no reason not to allow it since it provides
> additional useful detail.
>
> Martin
>
> Mark Brown wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ablack@roguewave.com
>>> Sent: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 09:56:30 -0600
>>> To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Re: regression test suite naming convention
>>>
>>> If we constrain ourselves to the proposed options, my vote is for Option
>>> 2. The reason for this vote is because it allows us to more easily
>>> determine what regression tests need to be run for a particular change.
>>>
>>> If we don't constrain ourselves to the proposed options, I wish to put
>>> forward an additional option.
>>>
>>> Option 3:
>>> Put all regression tests in tests/regress/, using the following
>>> naming convention:
>>> tests/regress/<section-number>.stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp
>>>
>>> This option would allow us to quickly locate all regression tests, and
>>> identify which section each regression test applies to without
>>> consulting Jira.
>>
>> I also think this option is better than the one I suggested. I suppose
>> the file name could include even more specific detail than just the
>> section number such as the name of the container or the member
>> function, like vector.cons and so on.
>>
>> -- Mark
>>
>>
>>
>>> --Andrew Black
>>>
>>> Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>> I'm not hearing any yay's or nay's on the proposed convention
>>>> so how about a vote to practice our consensus building skills?
>>>> Everyone is encouraged to vote, including non-committers.
>>>>
>>>> Option 1:
>>>> Put all regression tests in tests/regress/, naming each as
>>>> follows:
>>>> tests/regress/stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp
>>>>
>>>> Option 2:
>>>> Mix regression tests in with the rest based on the clause
>>>> in the standard and name each according to the following
>>>> formula:
>>>> tests/<section>/<section-number>.stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>
Re: [VOTE] Re: regression test suite naming convention
Posted by Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com>.
I also like option (3) best, so sounds like the home for
the new regression tests is unanimously in tests/regress/
The remaining question is the file name convention. Do we
go with <section-number>.stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp or do
we allow things like:
<section-number>.<dot-clause>.stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp
e.g., 23.vector.cons.stdcxx-123.cpp
FWIW, I see no reason not to allow it since it provides
additional useful detail.
Martin
Mark Brown wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ablack@roguewave.com
>> Sent: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 09:56:30 -0600
>> To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Re: regression test suite naming convention
>>
>> If we constrain ourselves to the proposed options, my vote is for Option
>> 2. The reason for this vote is because it allows us to more easily
>> determine what regression tests need to be run for a particular change.
>>
>> If we don't constrain ourselves to the proposed options, I wish to put
>> forward an additional option.
>>
>> Option 3:
>> Put all regression tests in tests/regress/, using the following
>> naming convention:
>> tests/regress/<section-number>.stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp
>>
>> This option would allow us to quickly locate all regression tests, and
>> identify which section each regression test applies to without
>> consulting Jira.
>
> I also think this option is better than the one I suggested. I suppose the file name could include even more specific detail than just the section number such as the name of the container or the member function, like vector.cons and so on.
>
> -- Mark
>
>
>
>> --Andrew Black
>>
>> Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> I'm not hearing any yay's or nay's on the proposed convention
>>> so how about a vote to practice our consensus building skills?
>>> Everyone is encouraged to vote, including non-committers.
>>>
>>> Option 1:
>>> Put all regression tests in tests/regress/, naming each as
>>> follows:
>>> tests/regress/stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp
>>>
>>> Option 2:
>>> Mix regression tests in with the rest based on the clause
>>> in the standard and name each according to the following
>>> formula:
>>> tests/<section>/<section-number>.stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp
>>>
>>> Martin
Re: [VOTE] Re: regression test suite naming convention
Posted by Mark Brown <mb...@inbox.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ablack@roguewave.com
> Sent: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 09:56:30 -0600
> To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Re: regression test suite naming convention
>
> If we constrain ourselves to the proposed options, my vote is for Option
> 2. The reason for this vote is because it allows us to more easily
> determine what regression tests need to be run for a particular change.
>
> If we don't constrain ourselves to the proposed options, I wish to put
> forward an additional option.
>
> Option 3:
> Put all regression tests in tests/regress/, using the following
> naming convention:
> tests/regress/<section-number>.stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp
>
> This option would allow us to quickly locate all regression tests, and
> identify which section each regression test applies to without
> consulting Jira.
I also think this option is better than the one I suggested. I suppose the file name could include even more specific detail than just the section number such as the name of the container or the member function, like vector.cons and so on.
-- Mark
>
> --Andrew Black
>
> Martin Sebor wrote:
>> I'm not hearing any yay's or nay's on the proposed convention
>> so how about a vote to practice our consensus building skills?
>> Everyone is encouraged to vote, including non-committers.
>>
>> Option 1:
>> Put all regression tests in tests/regress/, naming each as
>> follows:
>> tests/regress/stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp
>>
>> Option 2:
>> Mix regression tests in with the rest based on the clause
>> in the standard and name each according to the following
>> formula:
>> tests/<section>/<section-number>.stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp
>>
>> Martin
RE: [VOTE] Re: regression test suite naming convention
Posted by Scott Zhong <sc...@roguewave.com>.
Option 3 sounds better, if option 3 is allowed. Otherwise option 2.
Yu (Scott) Zhong
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Black [mailto:ablack@roguewave.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 9:57 AM
To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Re: regression test suite naming convention
If we constrain ourselves to the proposed options, my vote is for Option
2. The reason for this vote is because it allows us to more easily
determine what regression tests need to be run for a particular change.
If we don't constrain ourselves to the proposed options, I wish to put
forward an additional option.
Option 3:
Put all regression tests in tests/regress/, using the following
naming convention:
tests/regress/<section-number>.stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp
This option would allow us to quickly locate all regression tests, and
identify which section each regression test applies to without
consulting Jira.
--Andrew Black
Martin Sebor wrote:
> I'm not hearing any yay's or nay's on the proposed convention
> so how about a vote to practice our consensus building skills?
> Everyone is encouraged to vote, including non-committers.
>
> Option 1:
> Put all regression tests in tests/regress/, naming each as
> follows:
> tests/regress/stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp
>
> Option 2:
> Mix regression tests in with the rest based on the clause
> in the standard and name each according to the following
> formula:
> tests/<section>/<section-number>.stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp
>
> Martin
Re: [VOTE] Re: regression test suite naming convention
Posted by Andrew Black <ab...@roguewave.com>.
Liviu Nicoara wrote:
> FWIW, option 3 makes more sense to me.
>
> It could be enhanced though in the light of Martin's reply to Mark: some
> tests do not cleanly apply to a section. In which case option 3 can be
> enhanced to place such tests in the regress dir w/o a section number.
I would agree with the suggested enhancement. I recall seeing the reply
in question, and I think the enhancement was batting around in the back
of my mind prior to proposing the option, but I neglected to articulate it.
--Andrew Black
>
> Liviu
>
> Andrew Black wrote:
>> If we constrain ourselves to the proposed options, my vote is for
>> Option 2. The reason for this vote is because it allows us to more
>> easily determine what regression tests need to be run for a particular
>> change.
>>
>> If we don't constrain ourselves to the proposed options, I wish to put
>> forward an additional option.
>>
>> Option 3:
>> Put all regression tests in tests/regress/, using the following
>> naming convention:
>> tests/regress/<section-number>.stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp
>>
>> This option would allow us to quickly locate all regression tests, and
>> identify which section each regression test applies to without
>> consulting Jira.
>>
>> --Andrew Black
>>
>> Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> I'm not hearing any yay's or nay's on the proposed convention
>>> so how about a vote to practice our consensus building skills?
>>> Everyone is encouraged to vote, including non-committers.
>>>
>>> Option 1:
>>> Put all regression tests in tests/regress/, naming each as
>>> follows:
>>> tests/regress/stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp
>>>
>>> Option 2:
>>> Mix regression tests in with the rest based on the clause
>>> in the standard and name each according to the following
>>> formula:
>>> tests/<section>/<section-number>.stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp
>>>
>>> Martin
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Re: regression test suite naming convention
Posted by Liviu Nicoara <ni...@roguewave.com>.
FWIW, option 3 makes more sense to me.
It could be enhanced though in the light of Martin's reply to Mark: some
tests do not cleanly apply to a section. In which case option 3 can be
enhanced to place such tests in the regress dir w/o a section number.
Liviu
Andrew Black wrote:
> If we constrain ourselves to the proposed options, my vote is for Option
> 2. The reason for this vote is because it allows us to more easily
> determine what regression tests need to be run for a particular change.
>
> If we don't constrain ourselves to the proposed options, I wish to put
> forward an additional option.
>
> Option 3:
> Put all regression tests in tests/regress/, using the following
> naming convention:
> tests/regress/<section-number>.stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp
>
> This option would allow us to quickly locate all regression tests, and
> identify which section each regression test applies to without
> consulting Jira.
>
> --Andrew Black
>
> Martin Sebor wrote:
>> I'm not hearing any yay's or nay's on the proposed convention
>> so how about a vote to practice our consensus building skills?
>> Everyone is encouraged to vote, including non-committers.
>>
>> Option 1:
>> Put all regression tests in tests/regress/, naming each as
>> follows:
>> tests/regress/stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp
>>
>> Option 2:
>> Mix regression tests in with the rest based on the clause
>> in the standard and name each according to the following
>> formula:
>> tests/<section>/<section-number>.stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp
>>
>> Martin
>
Re: [VOTE] Re: regression test suite naming convention
Posted by Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com>.
Farid Zaripov wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Andrew Black [mailto:ablack@roguewave.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 5:57 PM
>> To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Re: regression test suite naming convention
>>
>> If we constrain ourselves to the proposed options, my vote is
>> for Option 2. The reason for this vote is because it allows
>> us to more easily determine what regression tests need to be
>> run for a particular change.
>>
>> If we don't constrain ourselves to the proposed options, I
>> wish to put forward an additional option.
>>
>> Option 3:
>> Put all regression tests in tests/regress/, using the following
>> naming convention:
>> tests/regress/<section-number>.stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp
>>
>> This option would allow us to quickly locate all regression
>> tests, and identify which section each regression test
>> applies to without consulting Jira.
>
> I'm voting for option 3. Because that tests are not depends on the
> rwtest library, I think they would be in separate directory
> (tests/regress/).
Good point! Yes, the regression tests do not need the rwtest
driver and probably shouldn't even link with it. Storing all
the tests in the same directory would make implementing this
change in the makefiles easier.
This also raises the question of how the regression tests
should be run. The exec utility expects tests to produce
output in a certain format. Tests that don't are normally
reported with the FORMAT status. The utility (and probably
also the makefile infrastructure) would need to change to
accommodate tests with this type of output.
Martin
RE: [VOTE] Re: regression test suite naming convention
Posted by Farid Zaripov <Fa...@epam.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Black [mailto:ablack@roguewave.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 5:57 PM
> To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Re: regression test suite naming convention
>
> If we constrain ourselves to the proposed options, my vote is
> for Option 2. The reason for this vote is because it allows
> us to more easily determine what regression tests need to be
> run for a particular change.
>
> If we don't constrain ourselves to the proposed options, I
> wish to put forward an additional option.
>
> Option 3:
> Put all regression tests in tests/regress/, using the following
> naming convention:
> tests/regress/<section-number>.stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp
>
> This option would allow us to quickly locate all regression
> tests, and identify which section each regression test
> applies to without consulting Jira.
I'm voting for option 3. Because that tests are not depends on the
rwtest library, I think they would be in separate directory
(tests/regress/).
Farid.
Re: [VOTE] Re: regression test suite naming convention
Posted by Andrew Black <ab...@roguewave.com>.
If we constrain ourselves to the proposed options, my vote is for Option
2. The reason for this vote is because it allows us to more easily
determine what regression tests need to be run for a particular change.
If we don't constrain ourselves to the proposed options, I wish to put
forward an additional option.
Option 3:
Put all regression tests in tests/regress/, using the following
naming convention:
tests/regress/<section-number>.stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp
This option would allow us to quickly locate all regression tests, and
identify which section each regression test applies to without
consulting Jira.
--Andrew Black
Martin Sebor wrote:
> I'm not hearing any yay's or nay's on the proposed convention
> so how about a vote to practice our consensus building skills?
> Everyone is encouraged to vote, including non-committers.
>
> Option 1:
> Put all regression tests in tests/regress/, naming each as
> follows:
> tests/regress/stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp
>
> Option 2:
> Mix regression tests in with the rest based on the clause
> in the standard and name each according to the following
> formula:
> tests/<section>/<section-number>.stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp
>
> Martin
[VOTE] Re: regression test suite naming convention
Posted by Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com>.
I'm not hearing any yay's or nay's on the proposed convention
so how about a vote to practice our consensus building skills?
Everyone is encouraged to vote, including non-committers.
Option 1:
Put all regression tests in tests/regress/, naming each as
follows:
tests/regress/stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp
Option 2:
Mix regression tests in with the rest based on the clause
in the standard and name each according to the following
formula:
tests/<section>/<section-number>.stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp
Martin
Martin Sebor wrote:
> Mark Brown wrote:
> [...]
>>> I propose tests/regress/stdcxx-NNN as the directory and file
>>> naming convention for these new tests.
>>>
>>> Comments?
>>
>> I like how the existing tests are organized by sections in the
>> standard. When working on for example vector, it's easy to run just
>> the container tests without having to worry about all the other tests.
>> If the regression tests are in a separate directory people will need
>> to remember to build and run them in addition to those for whatever it
>> is they happen to be working on. Would it be possible to put the
>> regression tests in the same directories as the other tests for the
>> same components?
>
> That sounds like a reasonable idea to me. Although not all
> regression tests necessarily are (or will always be) specific
> to a single component. Another (minor) wrinkle with the setup
> you are proposing is that the regression tests wouldn't show
> up along with the other tests for the same components in the
> test result logs unless we prepended the section number to
> their names like we do with te other ones. I.e., the naming
> convention for the section-specific regression tests would
> have to be something like:
>
> tests/<section>/<section-number>.stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp
>
> Regression tests that aren't specific to a single section
> would still follow the originally proposed convention:
>
> tests/regress/stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp
>
> Does this sound like a plan?
>
> Martin
regression test suite naming convention (was: Re: [jira] Closed:
(STDCXX-16) __rb_tree::operator=() does not store rhs' comparison object
in lhs)
Posted by Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com>.
Mark Brown wrote:
[...]
>> I propose tests/regress/stdcxx-NNN as the directory and file
>> naming convention for these new tests.
>>
>> Comments?
>
> I like how the existing tests are organized by sections in the standard. When working on for example vector, it's easy to run just the container tests without having to worry about all the other tests. If the regression tests are in a separate directory people will need to remember to build and run them in addition to those for whatever it is they happen to be working on. Would it be possible to put the regression tests in the same directories as the other tests for the same components?
That sounds like a reasonable idea to me. Although not all
regression tests necessarily are (or will always be) specific
to a single component. Another (minor) wrinkle with the setup
you are proposing is that the regression tests wouldn't show
up along with the other tests for the same components in the
test result logs unless we prepended the section number to
their names like we do with te other ones. I.e., the naming
convention for the section-specific regression tests would
have to be something like:
tests/<section>/<section-number>.stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp
Regression tests that aren't specific to a single section
would still follow the originally proposed convention:
tests/regress/stdcxx-<issue-number>.cpp
Does this sound like a plan?
Martin