From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1QbGOU-00022V-2v for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 18:18:46 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E8F201C016; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 18:18:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtprelay05.ispgateway.de (smtprelay05.ispgateway.de [80.67.31.98]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2FA81C016 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 18:18:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [85.179.21.166] (helo=[192.168.1.2]) by smtprelay05.ispgateway.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1QbGO4-0005W9-U7 for gentoo-catalyst@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:18:20 +0200 Message-ID: <4E08C969.6010502@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:18:17 +0200 From: Sebastian Pipping User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110526 Thunderbird/3.1.10 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-catalyst@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-catalyst@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-catalyst@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-catalyst] [rfc] simplifying arch classes References: <4E08C0DD.5010003@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Df-Sender: sping-gentoo@binera.de X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: bdfdfdb3d7ee313c2b2aaf6d2ab1aac2 On 06/27/2011 07:58 PM, Matt Turner wrote: > There seems to be an implicit assumption that the current code has > some kind of working test cases. :) I'm aware that I'm asking for test cases in context that seems to lack proper testing. > This is certainly not the case. Let me be clear, mistakes in the > current code come from having the same CFLAG, CHOST, etc strings > duplicated in many places. Refactoring the code would allow us to > catch mistakes like > http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/catalyst.git;a=commit;h=db4323146ce27362948de6eab57e1dbe28240bde > much more quickly. > > It seems to me that test coverage would be much simpler if the classes > were refactored, since various combinations would use nearly identical > code paths. It would make some code pathes being taken more often but still leave the "leafes" ontouched without a test for each leaf. Right? What could work though is a throw-away test for refactoring only, say writing a piece of code making a text file listing all combination of CFLAGS offered from targets. If after the refactoring you get the very same text file out, that's a good indicator. Is the idea clear? Best, Sebastian