[zeromq-dev] C++ assertion failed with Java client
benjaminrk at gmail.com
Sat Feb 4 01:24:57 CET 2012
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 15:24, john skaller <skaller at users.sourceforge.net>wrote:
> On 04/02/2012, at 10:02 AM, MinRK wrote:
> > Why not ship all that code with libzmq for testing?
> > That would mean shipping the entire Python binding with libzmq.
> So? It would also mean I can run the tests, on practically any machine,
> since Python is nice and portable (compared to C).
You can still run them, whether they are in the same repo or not. I don't
see a sufficient reason to merge two projects just because one has lots of
> But actually, I suppose I meant: the *source* version of libzmq
> (not a binary install).
> So I can just say "make test" have all the tests run before I try
> to push a patch.
Why not just run `nosetests -vvs zmq.tests`? This will run the pyzmq test
suite if you have pyzmq installed, and you do not generally have to rebuild
pyzmq when you make small changes to libzmq, because it's dynamically
I think the most important reason to not rely on the pyzmq test suite for
libzmq is that it would recommend a different pattern for what I do when
bugs in libzmq cause errors or failures. When I find a bug in libzmq, I
typically add a Skip or workaround to the test (after notifying libzmq-dev
or Jira about the bug), so that the suite continues to pass. The reason
for this is that the goal of the pyzmq test suite is *not* to test libzmq,
and failures in the suite should mean bugs in pyzmq. If testing libzmq
were the goal, the tests would be quite different.
*A* test suite of libzmq written largely in Python may still be a good
idea, because it's a lot easier to write many small tests in Python, but it
probably doesn't belong as the pyzmq test suite.
> john skaller
> skaller at users.sourceforge.net
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the zeromq-dev