New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

runtests: add -o to run test cases in scrambled order #1466

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@bagder
Member

bagder commented May 4, 2017

... instead of numerical order.

It might be more sensible to catch errors earlier instead of always running them sequentially.

runtests: add -o to run test cases in scrambled order
... instead of numerical order.
@mention-bot

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mention-bot

mention-bot May 4, 2017

@bagder, thanks for your PR! By analyzing the history of the files in this pull request, we identified @dfandrich and @yangtse to be potential reviewers.

mention-bot commented May 4, 2017

@bagder, thanks for your PR! By analyzing the history of the files in this pull request, we identified @dfandrich and @yangtse to be potential reviewers.

@bagder bagder closed this in 067b8f2 May 4, 2017

@bagder bagder deleted the bagder/runtests-random-order branch May 4, 2017

@dfandrich

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@dfandrich

dfandrich May 5, 2017

Collaborator

How about calling the option -R to match sort's option to do the same? -o isn't very mnemonic.

Collaborator

dfandrich commented May 5, 2017

How about calling the option -R to match sort's option to do the same? -o isn't very mnemonic.

@bagder

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bagder

bagder May 5, 2017

Member

A good idea! I couldn't think of good letter so I just picked an unused one, but -R sounds better. I have hope that I will use this locally for a while going forward and if proven successful, I might suggest that we switch this on by default and then we might want the option to instead negative the randomness...

Member

bagder commented May 5, 2017

A good idea! I couldn't think of good letter so I just picked an unused one, but -R sounds better. I have hope that I will use this locally for a while going forward and if proven successful, I might suggest that we switch this on by default and then we might want the option to instead negative the randomness...

@lock lock bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators May 14, 2018

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.