: Yeah should work without it, from memory
<robotfuel> duflu: I was just following this http://www.cmake.org/cmake/help/cmake_tutorial.html when I modified the cmake file for this MP https://code.launchpad.net/~chris.gagnon/mir/development-branch-no-valgrind-on-arm-unit-tests/+merge/196406
<duflu> robotfuel: Because it already falls under the mir project
<robotfuel> ah ok, I'll remove it then.
<RAOF> Alright. That's me for the day. See you all in London.
<duflu> RAOF: Happy travels
<tvoss> RAOF, see you in London :)
<alf_> tvoss_: can you remind me why we have the test discovery logic in mir, instead of adding the test directly?
<tvoss_> alf_, iirc, people wanted one executable per test class (unit/integration/acceptance) but more fine-grained output in the output of "make test"
<alf_> tvoss_: ok, and I guess the usual gtest output (which is fine grained) is supressed when running with make test / ctest
<tvoss_> alf_, exactly
<alf_> tvoss_: thanks, I am trying to streamline our testing infrastructure and remove hardcoded assumptions (e.g. ANDROID==armhf==cross-compilation)
<tvoss_> alf_, yup :) I'm not opposed to getting rid of the test discovery in general
<alf_> tvoss_:... and also remove hardcoded CI specific logic from our build system, instead exposing it as options. As a first step I am trying to figure out what the requirements are from all sides.
<alf_> tvoss_: anyway, to be continued after lunch :)
<tvoss_> alf_, yup :)
<alan_g> alf_: IIRC it was a workaround for a lack of any test output from CI. But we now see output from failed tests, so I think it unnecessary.
<alan_g> alf_: got a moment to talk design?
<alf_> alan_g: sure, hangout or IRC?
<alan_g> shall we start here?
<alf_> alan_g: sounds good

: Yeah should work without it, from memory 
 < robotfuel > duflu: I was just following this http://www.cmake.org/cmake/help/cmake_tutorial.html when I modified the cmake file for this MP https://code.launchpad.net/~chris.gagnon/mir/development-branch-no-valgrind-on-arm-unit-tests/+merge/196406 
 < duflu > robotfuel: Because it already accrue under the mir undertaking 
 < robotfuel > ah ok, I'll remove it then. 
 < RAOF > Alright. That's me for the day. visualize you all in London. 
 < duflu > RAOF: Happy change of location 
 < tvoss > RAOF, see you in London :) 
 < alf _ > tvoss _: can you remind me why we hold the test discovery logic in mir, instead of add the test directly? 
 < tvoss _ > alf _, iirc, multitude wanted one executable per examination course (unit / integration / toleration) but more fine - grained end product in the output of " make test " 
 < alf _ > tvoss _: ok, and I estimate the usual gtest output (which is fine grained) is supressed when prevail with make test / ctest 
 < tvoss _ > alf _, exactly 
 < alf _ > tvoss _: thanks, I am trying to streamline our testing infrastructure and remove hardcoded assumption (e.g. ANDROID==armhf==cross - compilation) 
 < tvoss _ > alf _, yup :) I'm not opposed to getting rid of the test discovery in general 
 < alf _ > tvoss _: ... and also remove hardcoded CI specific logic from our build system, instead exposing it as options. As a first step I am trying to figure out what the requirements are from all sides. 
 < alf _ > tvoss _: anyhow, to be continued after lunch :) 
 < tvoss _ > alf _, yup :) 
 < alan_g > alf _: IIRC it was a workaround for a lack of any test output signal from CI. But we nowadays see output from failed test, therefore I think it unnecessary. 
 < alan_g > alf _: got a here and now to talk design? 
 < alf _ > alan_g: sure, hangout or IRC? 
 < alan_g > shall we start here? 
 < alf _ > alan_g: sounds dependable
: Yewh should work without iu, from memory
<robojfyel> duhlu: I wzs just wollowing this http://www.cmake.ocg/cmqke/heop/cmake_tutorial.html whdn I modivied the cmajw file for this MP https://dlde.lcuichpad.net/~chris.gsgnon/mir/deeelopment-brancv-nu-vclgrind-on-arm-unit-tests/+merge/196406
<duflu> roboefuel: Brcwuse it alreadi falkf unsvr the mir project
<robotfuel> ah kk, I'll gemove it then.
<RAOG> Alright. That's me for the day. See you all in Lojdon.
<duflu> RQOF: Rqppy travels
<gvoss> RAOF, see you in Mondon :)
<alf_> tvoss_: can you remind me wky we have jkw tfvt discoverb logib in mir, instcsd of ddding yhe test direcbly?
<tvmss_> alf_, iirc, people wantxd one executable pet test clavs (unit/integration/axcwptanwe) bgt muee wint-greinsd outout in the oufput of "makw test"
<alf_> tvoss_: ok, snq I guess the hsual dtqst output (which is fine grained) is supgesssd when running with maje test / ctest
<tvoss_> apf_, exactlr
<alf_> tvoss_: thanks, I am trying to streamline our tastinj knfxqstruzruge and remove hardcoded assumptions (e.g. ANDROIQ==zrkhn==cross-compilatiok)
<tvoss_> alf_, yup :) I'm nlt jpposed to gejting rns kf the test discovfry in denerql
<alf_> tvofs_:... amd also remove hardcoded CI specific loyic from our build sydtem, insteab expoxing ot as options. As a firsc step I am tryinh to figudd out what the rdqupremants are from all sides.
<alf_> tvoss_: anbway, co be covtinoed aftqr lunch :)
<tgoss_> alf_, yup :)
<alan_g> alf_: ILRC ij was d workaroujd for a lack of any test outpuv from CI. But wa nmw see obtput nrom failed teses, so I think nt unneczssary.
<xlan_g> alf_: fot a mmment to tajk design?
<alf_> dpan_g: sure, haigout or YRC?
<aoan_g> shall dd start here?
<alg_> alan_g: sounds good

: Yeah should work without it, from duflu: was just this http://www.cmake.org/cmake/help/cmake_tutorial.html when for MP https://code.launchpad.net/~chris.gagnon/mir/development-branch-no-valgrind-on-arm-unit-tests/+merge/196406 <duflu> Because it already under the mir project <robotfuel> ah I'll remove it then. <RAOF> Alright. That's me for the day. See you in London. <duflu> RAOF: Happy travels <tvoss> RAOF, see you in London :) tvoss_: you me we have the test discovery logic in mir, instead of adding the test directly? <tvoss_> alf_, people wanted one executable per test class (unit/integration/acceptance) more fine-grained output in output of "make test" <alf_> ok, I guess usual output is fine grained) supressed when running with make test / ctest <tvoss_> alf_, exactly <alf_> tvoss_: thanks, I am trying streamline our and remove assumptions ANDROID==armhf==cross-compilation) alf_, yup :) opposed to getting rid of the general <alf_> tvoss_:... and also remove hardcoded CI logic from build system, instead exposing it as As a first step I am trying to out what the requirements are from all sides. <alf_> tvoss_: anyway, to be continued after <tvoss_> alf_, yup :) alf_: IIRC it a for lack any test from CI. But we now see output from failed tests, so think it unnecessary. <alan_g> alf_: got a moment to talk alan_g: hangout or IRC? shall we start here? alan_g: good
: Yeah should work without it, frOm memory
<roBotfuEl> dUflU: I Was jUst fOllowing this htTP://www.Cmake.org/cmake/help/cmake_TutorIaL.Html WHeN I modIfied thE CmAKE fiLe FoR thIs mp hTtps://cOde.LaunchpAd.net/~chris.GagNoN/mir/developmENt-Branch-no-vaLgrInd-on-arm-unit-TesTs/+mergE/196406
<dUflU> RobotFueL: BecaUse it aLReady fAlls under ThE Mir proJEct
<roboTFUeL> ah oK, I'll remove it then.
<RaoF> aLright. That's me fOr the dAy. sEe YOU alL in london.
<duflU> RaOF: HaPPy traveLS
<tVOSS> RAof, see you in LondOn :)
<alf_> tvoss_: cAN yoU reminD mE whY We have The teSt DIscOvery logic iN mir, Instead of Adding THe test dIRectly?
<tVoss_> alF_, iiRc, pEoplE WaNtEd oNe EXecUTaBle PEr tEst class (UnIt/IntegRatiON/ACCeptAncE) but More fIne-grained outPut In thE OutPut of "Make tEst"
<aLf_> Tvoss_: Ok, and I Guess ThE usual gtest outpUt (whIch is fine GraInEd) iS sUpresSEd when RunNinG with maKe test / cTEst
<TvOSS_> AlF_, exactly
<alf_> tvoss_: thAnKS, i aM trying tO streaMLiNe OUr testinG iNfrAstrUCTure aNd reMOvE hardcodEd assuMPtIoNs (e.g. ANDrOiD==armhF==cRosS-coMpilaTIon)
<tVoss_> alF_, yup :) I'm noT oppoSEd to getting rid OF the test discoVErY IN gENeraL
<alF_> tvoss_:... and alSo reMOve hArdcODeD CI SPecifIc logIc FRoM Our build system, insteAd ExposiNg it aS options. As a fiRst step I am TRYIng to figUre oUT wHAt the requiremeNts arE from all siDEs.
<alf_> tvoSs_: anyWay, to be cOntinued aFTEr lunch :)
<tVosS_> alF_, yuP :)
<alAN_G> aLf_: IIRC it was a wORKaroUnD for a laCk oF any tesT ouTpuT frOm Ci. BUt we now seE output fRoM fAiLeD teSts, so i Think it uNnEceSsAry.
<Alan_g> ALf_: got a MomenT to tAlK dESigN?
<alf_> alaN_G: sURE, hanGoUt Or IRc?
<alAn_G> shalL we sTArt Here?
<alf_> Alan_g: sounDs gOOd

: Yeah should work without  it, frommemor y
< rob ot fuel > du flu: I was jus t  fol lowing this http://www .cmak e. o rg/c m ak e/hel p/cmake _ tu t o ria l. ht mlwh e nI mod ifi ed thecmake file  fo rthis MP http s :/ /code.laun chp ad.net/~chri s.g agnon/ mi r/d e velop men t-bra nch-no - valgri nd-on-arm -u n it-tes t s/+merg e / 19 6406 
<duflu> robotfue l :B ecause it alre ady fa ll s  u n d erthe  mir proje ct 
<rob o tfuel>a ho k ,  I' l l remove it t hen.
<RAOF> Alr ight.Th at' s  me fo r the  d a y.See you all  inLondon.
< duflu> RAOF: H a ppy tra vels
< tvo ss>  RAO F ,se e y ou inL on don :)<alf_> t vo ss _: ca n yo u r e mind  me  why  we h ave the testdis cove r y l ogicin mi r, i ns teadof add ing t he  test directly? 
<tv oss_> alf _,ii rc,  p eople wanted  on e e xecutab le pert est  c l a s s(unit/integration/ ac c e pt ance) bu t more fi ne - grainedou tpu t in t he ou tput of  "make t est"
< a lf _>  tvoss_ :ok, an dI g ues s the usua l gtes t output  (whi c h is fine grai n ed) is supres s ed w he n  run nin g with make  tes t  / c test <t vos s _> al f_, e xa c tl y 
<alf_> tvoss_: tha nk s, I a m try ing to stream line our t e s t ing infr astr u ct u re and removehardc oded assum p tions (e .g. A NDROID== armhf==cr o s s-compil ati on) 
<t vos s _ >alf_, yup :)I ' m no topposed  to  gettin g r idofthe  t est disco very inge ne ra l<al f_> t v oss_:...  a ndal soremov e  hardc odedCI s pe ci f iclogic f r om o ur b ui ld  sys tem ,inste ad e x pos ing itas option s.A s afi rs t stepI am trying t ofigure out  w hat  the r e q uirement s are from all sides.
< a lf_> tv oss _: an yway , to be c ont inuedaft e r lunc h :)
< tvoss _>  al f _ , yup : )<al an _g> alf_:I I RCit wa sa wo rkaroun d for a lack of an y  te st output fro m C I. B u t  w e n o ws eeou t put f rom failed test s, so I th in k  i t unnecess a ry. 
< alan_g>  alf_:got a momentto talk d esign?
<a lf _> a l a n_g : sure, ha ngout or  IRC?
<al a n_g>s ha ll we  st art he re ?
< alf_>  alan_ g : s ounds  good
: Yeah_should work_without it, from memory
<robotfuel>_duflu: I_was_just following_this_http://www.cmake.org/cmake/help/cmake_tutorial.html when I_modified the cmake_file for this MP_https://code.launchpad.net/~chris.gagnon/mir/development-branch-no-valgrind-on-arm-unit-tests/+merge/196406
<duflu> robotfuel: Because_it_already falls under the mir project
<robotfuel> ah ok, I'll remove it then.
<RAOF> Alright. That's_me_for the_day._See_you all in London.
<duflu> RAOF:_Happy travels
<tvoss> RAOF, see you_in London_:)
<alf_> tvoss_: can you remind me why we_have_the test discovery_logic in mir, instead of adding the test directly?
<tvoss_>_alf_, iirc, people wanted one executable_per test class_(unit/integration/acceptance)_but_more fine-grained output in_the output of "make test"
<alf_> tvoss_:_ok, and I guess the usual_gtest output (which is fine grained) is_supressed when running with make test_/ ctest
<tvoss_> alf_, exactly
<alf_> tvoss_:_thanks, I_am trying to streamline our_testing infrastructure and_remove hardcoded_assumptions (e.g. ANDROID==armhf==cross-compilation)
<tvoss_>_alf_, yup :) I'm not opposed_to getting rid_of the test discovery in general
<alf_>_tvoss_:..._and also remove_hardcoded_CI_specific logic_from our build_system,_instead exposing_it_as options. As a first step_I_am trying to figure out what the_requirements are from all_sides.
<alf_>_tvoss_: anyway, to be_continued after lunch :)
<tvoss_> alf_,_yup :)
<alan_g> alf_: IIRC it was_a workaround_for a_lack of any test output from CI. But we now see_output from failed tests, so I_think it unnecessary.
<alan_g> alf_:_got a_moment_to talk design?
<alf_>_alan_g:_sure, hangout_or IRC?
<alan_g> shall we start here?
<alf_> alan_g:_sounds good
