Re: [PATCH] Add regression tests for abipkgdiff using ctf info

[Dodji Seketeli <dodji@seketeli.org>]

Hello Guillermo,

"Guillermo E. Martinez" <guillermo.e.martinez@oracle.com> a écrit:

>> > 	* tests/test-diff-pkg-ctf.cc: Testsuite for abipkgdiff --ctf.
>> 
>> Why come up with a something else but test-diff-pkg.cc just to test RPMs
>> using abipkgdiff --ctf?
> Actually that was my first approach, but looking inside of the acts to perform
> the abipkgdiff DWARFs test, the steps could be changed in the feature
> (new steps in `perform' member function applied to DWARFs not applicable to CTF),

Sorry, I am not sure to understand this.  What are the steps that would
exist for DWARF that would not in CTF, and that would have to be handled
at the testing level, rather than at the level of abipkgdiff/libabigail
itself?  This is a honest question.  I can't think of any such case
right now.  Do you see any?

> so it was my motivation to split the tests. But of course these are my
> thoughts, and I will follow you advices because you have much more
> experience. So what do you think, worth split the tests for DWARF and CTF?
>> I mean, can't we just use test-diff-pkg.cc and fill in entries made of
>> instances of struct InOutSpec with InOutSpec::prog_option filled in with
>> a string prefixed by " --ctf " ?
>> 
>> Of course, those ctf-related entries would be guarded by #ifdef WITH_CTF
>> or the like.
>> 
>> 
>> Wouldn't that work and be simpler?
> For the current implementation, absolutely. 

Then I'd rather keep the simpler way for now.  Unless you think there is
an absolute need for the more complicated choice right now, of course.

Cheers,

-- 
		Dodji