Re: ASDF test-op

Robert Goldman <[email protected]> writes:
> Todd Sabin wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Doesn't ASDF already write all of its output to a particular stream,
>> namely *verbose-out*?  (Provided you've bound it to something, of
>> course) Couldn't you just document that test-op writers should write
>> to that stream?  Or maybe that doesn't work because, by default, it's
>> bound to nil, so you define another dynamic variable *test-output*, or
>> something, and document that?
>> 
>> I guess I don't really understand the problem you're solving, and I'm
>> wondering why all the CLOS machinery is necessary...
>> 
>
> What we're trying to avoid is having the test outputs be mixed in with
> the normal ASDF outputs.
>
> Here's a concrete bad (by "bad" I mean "undesirable," not "buggy")
> behavior I have seen:
>
> I have a test-op for a large and complex system.  This test op loads
> multiple ASDF components, each of which gets compiled.
>
> The problem is that instead of getting a nice printed output from my
> testing, I get a stew of compiler messages and test outputs all mooshed
> together.  This makes it hard for me to see if the tests went ok.
>
> So I'd like to send the test outputs off somewhere else, so I don't have
> to skip over all the compiler messages.

Why doesn't something like

(defvar *test-op-output* *standard-output*
  "The stream to which test-op operations should write their output")

suffice?  You would, of course, bind or assign *test-op-output* to
something of your liking.

Defining the generic functions, etc., that were proposed seems to
raise a lot more questions, to me.  E.g., ASDF already has
*verbose-out*, though on a closer look, it doesn't seem to be intended
for the user to manipulate directly.  Instead, there's the :verbose
argument to OPERATE.  Should *verbose-out* go away, and everywhere
that ASDF currently writes to it be changed to write to
(output-stream-for-operation-component op c) ?  And if you add
:output-stream as an argument to OPERATE, shouldn't :verbose go away?

It also seems like slots on the operation and initargs will make
things not work the way you want.  If you have in your system
definition

   :in-order-to ( ;;; etc 
                 (test-op (compile-op my-system)
                          (load-op my-system)) ;; or whatever the syntax is

when ASDF creates the child operations to compile and load the system,
won't those operations will get the same :output-stream initarg, and
then you still get the compiler output in with your test output?

-- 
Todd Sabin                                          <[email protected]>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/