[Gdal-dev] Re: GDAL 1.3.1 Alpha 2 Released

[Howard Butler]

It is a happy coincidence that the gdalautotest suite has worked well 
to allow us to exercise the next generation bindings, but it is my 
understanding that they were developed to test GDAL itself, and not 
necessarily the script bindings.

The testing suite as it currently stands can require many different 
drivers that are not enabled by default on all builds and contain 
significantly sized data to test the capabilities of certain drivers. 
I wouldn't want to bloat the distribution of GDAL with all of the 
test overhead.

My third point is that the next gen bindings development has been 
disruptive enough without turning over the apple cart of testing at 
this time.  I vote (there's only one vote that counts, btw ;) that we 
hold the testing suite still until the dust settles on next gen 
development and then maybe take a look at it.

Another thing to add is that an even worse scenario is to have *two* 
test suites like MapServer has.  MapServer has the MapScript unit 
tests (which have good coverage of methods and calls) and the 
MapServer test suite which has coverage of the mechanicals of 
MapServer.  It has made it difficult to divine in an automated way 
what might be going on, and the fact that there are two different 
test harnesses with two different invocations unnecessarily adds to 
the developer overhead IMO.

Howard

At 12:11 AM +0300 10/3/05, Ari Jolma wrote:
>Charlie Savage kirjoitti:
>
>>I just meant having all the tests in one place, i.e., gdalautotest. 
>>For Ruby, I just created a Ruby directory and then ported some of 
>>the Python tests to Ruby.  But I think you should write the tests 
>>that are most appropriate for the language.
>
>
>I don't see much point in porting the gdalautotest code to Perl 
>since the scope of that is so much larger than the test code for the 
>Perl API.
>
>>
>>I tend to agree with you that I'd like the tests in the GDAL CVS 
>>project (makes them more obvious), but I think that a matter of 
>>debate (integrated tests or separate tests) without a clearly 
>>better answer.
>
>
>Let's have that debate? Or was there such already? I can't think of 
>any good reason to keep the tests separate but many to have them 
>integrated and a standard part of any compilation+installation.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Ari
>
>
>--
>Prof. Ari Jolma
>Kartografia ja Geoinformatiikka / Cartography and Geoinformatics
>Teknillinen Korkeakoulu / Helsinki University of Technology
>POBox 1200, 02015 TKK, Finland
>Email: ari.jolma at tkk.fi URL: http://www.tkk.fi/~jolma
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gdal-dev mailing list
>Gdal-dev at lists.maptools.org
>http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev