RetroSearch Browse

Wed Mar 23 13:49:39 CET 2011 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-March/109899.html

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 9:45 PM, John Arbash Meinel
<john at arbash-meinel.com> wrote:
> I don't specifically know what is in those 340 tests, but 18min/340 =
> 3.2s for each test. Which is *much* longer than simple smoke tests would
> have to be.

The counts Barry is referring to there are actually counting test
*files*, rather than individual tests. We only have 359 of those in
total though (not counting those in subdirectories), so a "quicktest"
that omits less than 6% of them doesn't sound particularly quick (even
if it does leave out the slowest ones).

We should probably do another pass and add a few more tests to the
blacklist in the Makefile template (starting with
test_concurrent_futures).

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-March/109899.html below:

[Python-Dev] Trimming the fat from "make quicktest" (was Re: I am now lost