[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       busybox
Subject:    Re: testing functionality that depends on compile-time options
From:       walter harms <wharms () bfs ! de>
Date:       2014-11-14 17:59:06
Message-ID: 546642EA.1070105 () bfs ! de
[Download RAW message or body]



Am 10.11.2014 16:30, schrieb Alexander von Rhein:
> Hi,
> 
> I noted that some parameters of busybox functions are not covered in the
> test suite (e.g. the -c option of head).
> http://git.busybox.net/busybox/tree/testsuite/head
> The head -c option is only available if CONFIG_FANCY_HEAD is enabled.
> http://git.busybox.net/busybox/tree/coreutils/head.c#n187
> I am doing a PhD and I plan to generate and test many busybox
> configurations (with different compile-time options enabled/disabled).
> 
> So I was wondering whether it occurs often that optional parameters are
> not tested.
> If that is so, is it because of technical inconvenience (variability
> management) or because the implementation not worth a test (trivial)?
> 
> Kind regards,
> Alexander
> 

there is no hard testing regime. Most is done by demand since a lot
of options are trivial testing is not really needed.

re,
 wh
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]