[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: bug#48598: 28.0.50; buffer-naming collisions involving bouncers in E
From: |
J.P. |
Subject: |
Re: bug#48598: 28.0.50; buffer-naming collisions involving bouncers in ERC |
Date: |
Mon, 11 Apr 2022 06:29:34 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:
> Michael Albinus <michael.albinus@gmx.de> writes:
>
>> On EMBA, tests will run only per subdirectories like test/lisp/erc. As
>> long as all ERC related tests are located there, these tests are
>> triggered only when there is a change in lisp/erc/* or
>> test/lisp/erc/*. No problem.
Thanks for the lowdown, Michael. The tests that matter live directly
under test/lisp/erc. The deeper ones
test/lisp/erc
├── erc-d
│ ├── erc-d-self.el <~~ like this thing
only target fixtures and other apparati, so they can be skipped if need
be. But if they're swept up for the bigger 8-hourly runs, that's fine
too.
> If these tests take five minutes, then they're presumably marked as
> expensive, so they won't get run by a normal "make check" anyway? (I
> haven't actually checked the patch.)
Lars, thanks for looking at this (and my other bugs). I meant five
minutes in aggregate. The vast majority take fractions of a second, and
the ones that don't mostly reside in a single file (log attached). I
haven't yet tagged any as expensive but certainly can. CONTRIBUTE says
"longer than some few seconds", so I guess maybe a dozen or so in that
EMBA log fit the bill. Should I go ahead and tag them?
erc-scenarios.log
Description: Text document
- Questions regarding layout and composition of tests (bug#48598), J.P., 2022/04/09
- Re: Questions regarding layout and composition of tests (bug#48598), Lars Ingebrigtsen, 2022/04/10
- Re: bug#48598: 28.0.50; buffer-naming collisions involving bouncers in ERC, Michael Albinus, 2022/04/11
- Re: bug#48598: 28.0.50; buffer-naming collisions involving bouncers in ERC, Lars Ingebrigtsen, 2022/04/11
- Re: bug#48598: 28.0.50; buffer-naming collisions involving bouncers in ERC,
J.P. <=
- Re: bug#48598: 28.0.50; buffer-naming collisions involving bouncers in ERC, Lars Ingebrigtsen, 2022/04/11
- Re: bug#48598: 28.0.50; buffer-naming collisions involving bouncers in ERC, Michael Albinus, 2022/04/12
- Re: bug#48598: 28.0.50; buffer-naming collisions involving bouncers in ERC, J.P., 2022/04/15
- Re: bug#48598: 28.0.50; buffer-naming collisions involving bouncers in ERC, Michael Albinus, 2022/04/15
- Re: bug#48598: 28.0.50; buffer-naming collisions involving bouncers in ERC, J.P., 2022/04/15
- Re: bug#48598: 28.0.50; buffer-naming collisions involving bouncers in ERC, Michael Albinus, 2022/04/17
- Re: bug#48598: 28.0.50; buffer-naming collisions involving bouncers in ERC, J.P., 2022/04/18
- Re: bug#48598: 28.0.50; buffer-naming collisions involving bouncers in ERC, Michael Albinus, 2022/04/18
- Re: bug#48598: 28.0.50; buffer-naming collisions involving bouncers in ERC, J.P., 2022/04/21
- Re: bug#48598: 28.0.50; buffer-naming collisions involving bouncers in ERC, Michael Albinus, 2022/04/22