Re: [PATCH v2] t/Makefile: add a rule to re-run previously-failed tests

From: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
To: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Cc: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>,
	"Jeff King" <peff@peff.net>, Git <git@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] t/Makefile: add a rule to re-run previously-failed tests
Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2016 11:19:19 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <vpqoa44xbs8.fsf@anie.imag.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1609040952110.129229@virtualbox> (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Sun, 4 Sep 2016 09:55:39 +0200 (CEST)")

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 2 Sep 2016, Matthieu Moy wrote:
>
>> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
>> 
>> > Hi Ævar,
>> >
>> > On Fri, 2 Sep 2016, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> >
>> >> This might be me missing the point, and I'm really just trying to be
>> >> helpful here and make "prove" work for you because it's awesome, but
>> >> as far as just you running this for development purposes does any of
>> >> this SVN stuff matter? I.e. you can build Git itself not with
>> >> Strawberry, but just use Strawberry to get a working copy of "prove".
>> >
>> > Yes, the SVN stuff matters, because of the many t9*svn* tests (which, BTW
>> > take a substantial time to run). So if I run the test suite, I better do
>> > it with a perl.exe in the PATH that can run the SVN tests. Otherwise I
>> > might just as well not bother with running the entire test suite...
>> 
>> Maybe something like
>> 
>> \path\to\strawberry-perl\perl.exe \path\to\prove ...
>> 
>> without changing the PATH would work. I wouldn't call that convenient
>> though.
>
> Wouldn't Perl-specific environment variables set by Strawberry Perl (such
> as PERL_PATH bleed through to the spawned child processes?
>
> We're dancing around the issue, really. Rather than piling workaround on
> workaround with no end in sight, I think it is time to admit that using
> prove(1) on Windows is just not a good solution for the problem to re-run
> failed tests.

I didn't re-add Ævar's disclaimer, but my message was really not
intended to be an objection to your patch, just a (not necessarily good)
idea in case you or someone else on windows wanted to give one more
chance to prove.

I'm all for adding "make failed". Actually, we could even make the
feature more discoverable by echoing "You may run 'make failed' to
re-run failed tests" at the end of the tests when one of them failed.

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/