[petsc-dev] every test example runs in a new directory with new test harness

[Matthew Knepley]

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 9:07 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

>
> > On Feb 9, 2017, at 7:26 PM, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 7:06 PM, Jed Brown <jed at jedbrown.org> wrote:
> > Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> writes:
> > > So I need to check in this checkpoint file in order to test reading it
> in,
> > > and also the diffing? I am not sure I like that better.
> > > Shouldn't we design our test system to do this simple thing, rather
> than
> > > clutter our repository for all time?
> >
> > Shouldn't we do the stronger test that guarantees the file format does
> > not silently change?
> >
> > I don't think an undocumented format is as much of a consideration as
> keeping
>
>   Why are you using an undocumented format? Doesn't seem such a good idea.


We make these kinds of tradeoffs all the time. What is the overhead for
documenting
something that may be changed soon. It is higher than we want to pay
sometimes,
whereas testing something that exists pays off immediately.

   Matt


> > the repo clean.
> >
> >    Matt
> >
> > --
> > What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their
> experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their
> experiments lead.
> > -- Norbert Wiener
>
>


-- 
What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their
experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their
experiments lead.
-- Norbert Wiener
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20170209/1f4e39c0/attachment.html>