Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:38398
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain phparch.com from 64.99.136.134 cause and error)
Message-ID: <042d01c8d215$30e50240$4401a8c0@foxbox>
Reply-To: "Steph Fox" <steph@phparch.com>
To: "Travis Swicegood" <tswicegood@php.net>
Cc: "internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <04ba01c8d183$14f01b20$4401a8c0@foxbox> <4859D6B1.9030207@oracle.com> <00f601c8d1fb$fe5a8200$4401a8c0@foxbox> <49630731E5C64725B38BADFF04778684@pc07654> <03a001c8d205$157556a0$4401a8c0@foxbox> <C544EF8E-BD26-4F89-93A3-F83C19060CBB@php.net> <040501c8d210$1e464310$4401a8c0@foxbox> <9EB1CAAF-40B6-47C8-9DE8-510F5F23EF37@php.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:03:00 +0100
Organization: php|architect
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [PATCH] make it possible to skip very slow tests
From: steph@phparch.com ("Steph Fox")


> There's nothing wrong with that approach.  I'm trying to find  something 
> that addresses the problem (i.e., "how can I not run tests  that are going 
> to take a long time to run?"), while providing enough  flexibility to 
> answer other problems (i.e., "how can I skip X tests  that I don't care 
> about?").
>
> If there's a way to address the problem without making it so  specific, 
> I'm all for it.

I mostly agree - I'm just looking at 'here and now' rather than 'when the 
nice new test suite stuff is done'. 'Here and now', there isn't a reliable 
way to set this up and skipif looks like the cleanest option.

>> I think the naming thing would be a better idea for something  that's 
>> just starting out. It's a less good idea for a test suite  that already 
>> exists IMHO.
>
> Agreed.  If we were to go this route, I'd actually consider adding a 
> run-tests.ini or some such that allows you to configure things like 
> excluded file patterns.

That might not be a bad idea.

- Steph