make check recommended practice?

[David Bateman]

John W. Eaton wrote:
> On  3-Dec-2007, David Bateman wrote:
> 
> | I'm not sure how in that case to distinguish a test like
> | 
> | %!test assert(...)
> | 
> | from an optional test, as the code for the test can immediate follow the
> | "test" keyword..
> 
> OK.
> 
> | This is why I thought a special tag for the optional
> | tests would be easy, as in that case the next keyword following the
> | "test" keyword is known explicitly to be the optional block.. Maybe
> | something like
> | 
> | %!testif HAVE_CHOLMOD
> | %! assert (...)
> | 
> | mean
> | 
> | %!test
> | %! if (!isempty(findstr(octave_config_info ("DEFS"),"HAVE_CHOLMOD")))
> | %!   assert (...)
> | %! endif
> 
> This seems fine to me.
> 
> jwe
> 


Ok, then what about the attached? It adds the code to test.m for the
"%!testif" blocks, the tests to "test.m" to test its functionality and
then converts regexp.cc to use the new "%!testif" blocks. We then need
to make many of the tests on the sparse functionality conditional,
though thats a bit harder as I'll have to remove suitesparse from my
build to test this..

D.


-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: patch43
Url: https://www.cae.wisc.edu/pipermail/octave-maintainers/attachments/20071203/e6072f4d/attachment.ksh 
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: patch43.changelog
Url: https://www.cae.wisc.edu/pipermail/octave-maintainers/attachments/20071203/e6072f4d/attachment-0001.ksh