Re: Right way to cope with user error in make test?

[Steven Edwards]

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Jeremy White  wrote:
> Yah; I think to some extent we need to wait for Alexandre to express
> an opinion on how, if at all, he'd like to address this.
>
> We seem to have come up with about 4 approaches:
> - Skip the test.  Rob thinks Alexandre will reject this
> - Make WINE_NOTICE_WITH be default error; i.e. require
> an explicit --without in order to skip a package you lack
> - Create some sort of config record; a config.id if you will.
> This could then be read by dotests and/or winetests
> to not transmit the results.
> (As a side note, this might be handy place to put
> a git HEAD which might allow my winetest patches to go in,
> thereby eliminating the need for an out of tree dotests.  But no bias here <grin>).
> - Have dotests scan the existing config.log file.

1. really seems to me like the right method. including config.h in the
test and doing something like

START_TEST(foo_and_bar)
{
#ifdef HAVE_FOO
test_foo()
#endif
test_bar()
}

I don't see why we can't do this along with embedding the config.h
information the winetest transmission data. This will greatly help
with the number of false failures.

Thanks