[petsc-dev] Fwd: Nightly tests quick summary page

[Jed Brown]

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Karl Rupp <rupp at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

> Testing for the same number of iterations is - as you mentioned - a
> terrible metric. I see this regularly on GPUs, where rounding modes differ
> slightly from CPUs. Running a fixed (low) number of iterations is certainly
> the better choice here, provided that the systems we use for the tests are
> neither too ill-conditioned nor too well-behaved so that we can eventually
> reuse the tests for some preconditioners.
>

That's something that certainly makes sense for tests of functionality, but
not for examples/tutorials that new users should encounter, lest they get
the impression that they should use such options.

Do you have much experience with code coverage tools? It would be very
useful if we could automatically identify which tests were serving no
useful purpose. The amount of time taken by make alltests is currently
unreasonable, and though parallel testing will help, I suspect there are
also many tests that could be removed (and time-consuming tests that could
be made much faster without affecting their usefulness).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20130124/5a1c68f7/attachment.html>