How GNU Make is tested | Hacker News Reader

How GNU Make is tested

lowlevelbits.org

88 pointsAlexDenisov24 comments

This looks very similar to how I test my configuration management tool Holo: I just run the compiled binary in a chroot and compare its output and the resulting filesystem tree to the recorded expectation. [1]

So no unit tests at all. I think that unit tests work very well for pure functions, but their utility decreases the more side effects your code has. Also, unit tests usually just add confusion when the unit tested is really an internal implementation detail, rather than refering to some object in the application's or library's external domain model.

[1] https://github.com/holocm/holo/tree/master/test for the core parts

I personally see that as a unit test; Plenty of unit tests use real files on the filesystem in their mocks, you're hermetically sealed from the rest of the system, how is it not a unit test?

I'm just arguing vocabulary, though. There seems to be a spectrum, pure unit tests on one side, then integration tests, with Canaries way off to the other side.

Because it is testing the functionality of the entire program (the single executable), not individual component units (functions).

Which is the reason most conf mgt tools are broken due to not understanding the domain and in this case resolving a graph.

My domain model deliberately does not have a graph.

Config management is 100% a graph, ignoring it will just make things a mess and hard to extend in simple ways.

> I assume that the reason why most of these failing tests are failing is not a regression in core functionality of Make but rather because of new features were added to GNU Make since 2006.

There were a number of bugs in the 3.81 release that I assume they now have tests for, since 4.x has been rock solid. (Off the top of my head, if you made a certain shape in the dependency graph with .PHONY targets, then .DELETE_ON_ERROR stopped working)

Yeah, I ran into a very weird problem with the .INTERMEDIATE declaration recently that turned out to be due to 3.81 being buggy.

> GNU Make’s source code is available from Github repository

It's not GitHub, it's Savannah, as just linked literally 2 lines below :

> http://savannah.gnu.org/git/?group=make

Savannah is home to the core development team's repository. The author mentions this in the article. However, the source code is available in more than one place. With GNU projects, it is not uncommon.

That was a typo :)

The author already changed the link (as mentioned below). On that note that---with some GNU projects use GitHub as a mirror---GitHub fails GNU's ethical repository criteria for hosts:

https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria.html

Do you know which features of github that require javascript? Would be interesting to know from a noscript perspective.

Off the top of my head:

- changing repo's description

- changing repo's homepage URL

- changing default branch

- (un)protecting a branch

- editing an issue comment

- adding files to a release

- removing files from a release

- removing a release

- renaming repo

- removing repo

- logging out

Most of these could be probably scripted via API, but I'm lazy...

Still better than Bitbucket, which won't you even log in with JS disabled.

Thanks for that list; I haven't checked to update in a while. :)

I haven't checked in some time, but this was the list I noticed a little while back:

https://mikegerwitz.com/about/githubbub

jwilk's list below seems much more comprehensive.

But all git repositories are hosted by github. It's in the name.

That's simply not true.

You got to be kidding. Please read VERY CAREFULLY what is Git [1] and what is GitHub [2]. The fact that GitHub only hosts Git repositories is only a matter of choice, Git repositories can be hosted in any server without any (big) restriction. Please restrain yourself from making useless comments if you don't have enough information about it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_(software)

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GitHub

Given that J_Darnley's HN profile includes a link to his GitLab profile, I think it's fair to guess that he was being sarcastic.

Congratulations.

I feel badly for the person who didn't realize you were sarcastic, passionately defended the idea that git != github, and got down-voted as their congratulations.

Please don't break the HN guidelines by being uncivil, even when another comment is bad. (Also, please don't use all caps for emphasis.)

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11945115 and marked it off-topic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com