Test labels and reduced fast test sizes#1826
Conversation
pratikvn
added
the
1:ST:need-feedback
ginkgo-bot
added
reg:build
|
What benefit does using the label option of ctest have compared to the regex option? It should already be possible to, for example, run all reference tests just by using |
| if(add_test_LABEL) | ||
| set_tests_properties( | ||
| ${REL_BINARY_DIR}/${test_binary_name} | ||
| PROPERTIES LABELS "${add_test_LABEL}" | ||
| ) | ||
| endif() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nice find - seems supported since at least CMake 3.16, so I think this could be useful. We could also use it to add executor information
|
@MarcelKoch Labels can be a list of keywords, thus carry more information than just the test name. |
|
@upsj sure, but the question is rather, what labels could we have that are not already found in the test name? |
|
I think it would be cleaner to use labels for things like MPI usage, executor type, differentiation between core/device, since things like |
|
you can also use |
|
Those are two patterns that match different subsets of our tests. What I'm saying is that we are using the names for something they are not meant to do, labels would be a cleaner solution |
pratikvn
added
1:ST:no-changelog-entry
pratikvn
added
1:ST:ready-to-merge
|
5 participants
This PR adds the ability to pass in labels to tests which can then be used to run tests matching specific labels
ctest -L <>. It also reduces the sizes of some tests to speedup whenGINKGO_FAST_TESTSis enabled.I found the labels feature, and thought it would be interesting to have, but I think it is not necessary.