On (03/12/14 20:00), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 06:37:35PM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> On (03/12/14 18:12), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> >test_child was declared to be build always but only actually built when
> >cmocka was available, which is not the case on all platforms.
> >
> >We can either 1) move the test_child outside the HAVE_CMOCKA or 2) only
> >append test_child to check_PROGRAMS when cmocka is available which is what
> >the attached patch does.
> >
> >I'm fine with either option. Thanks for opinions/review.
>
> >From 67db9748960fbaf6deac4c01084bc23bc1321723 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >From: Jakub Hrozek <jhrozek(a)redhat.com>
> >Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 17:00:25 +0100
> >Subject: [PATCH] TESTS: Build test_child even without cmocka
> >
> >---
> > Makefile.am | 5 ++++-
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/Makefile.am b/Makefile.am
> >index
7a36543061789bbd370fcbb118b66edeb8025e89..6d754f062245cc073c945218f6755dab1c59c543 100644
> >--- a/Makefile.am
> >+++ b/Makefile.am
> >@@ -236,10 +236,13 @@ endif # HAVE_CMOCKA
> > check_PROGRAMS = \
> > stress-tests \
> > krb5-child-test \
> >- test-child \
>
> test-child is simple program without external dependencies.
> It does not depend on libcmocka therefore should not be in block HAVE_CMOCKA.
But currently it's only built to supplement a cmocka program, so
building it would be useless.
I am not strictly against this micro optimisation.
>
> On the other hand, I am not strictly against. If you decide to do such change
> then please also change the name of this binary. This binary isn't test.
> It is executable file which is used by another test.
it's a child program used by the test_child_common.c unit and actually
depends on it via environment variables. Can you suggest a better name?
I generally suck at naming things and tbh don't consider the name too
important to spend much time on.
The name was confusing for me. I wanted to execute child test to fix a valgrind
issue. And my 1st attempt was wong.
sh$ ./test-child
(Wed Dec 3 21:18:14:367425 2014) [sssd] [main] (0x0400): test_child completed
successfully
the 2nd attept works.
sh$ ./test_child_common
[==========] Running 2 test(s).
[ RUN ] test_exec_child
[ OK ] test_exec_child
[ RUN ] test_exec_child_extra_args
[ OK ] test_exec_child_extra_args
[==========] 2 test(s) run.
[ PASSED ] 2 test(s).
0 FAILED TEST(S)
We have {ldap,krb5,selinux}-child.
IMHO the better name would be simple-child or dummy-child (maybe example-child)
BTW confusion can be caused by the fact that we are not uniform with name
of tests.
Some tests have suffix "-tests" sydb-tests, dyndns-tests ...
and others have prefix "test[-_]": test-find-uid, test-authtok, test_sss_idmap,
test_search_bases ...
LS