Iterelf flag support

[jordancarlin]

Currently iterelf accepts --fcov and --coverage flags and does nothing with either of them. We need to decide what the scope of iterelf should be (is it even all that useful anymore with the addTestsByDir function of regression-wally?) and update it accordingly.

[davidharrishmc]

Iterelf coverage would be handy, and more so if it runs the jobs in parallel and merges the results.it hasn’t risen to the priority because regression-wally has been good enough, but if it’s a fast change, go for it.

…

On Sun, Dec 8, 2024 at 5:02 PM Jordan Carlin ***@***.***> wrote: Currently iterelf accepts --fcov and --coverage flags and does nothing with either of them. We need to decide what the scope of iterelf should be (is it even all that useful anymore with the addTestsByDir function of regression-wally?) and update it accordingly. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1181>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AR4AA3YGOV2UM5KZ4PKYYHL2ETT3FAVCNFSM6AAAAABTHYKUAOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZSG4ZDKNRZGUYDKMI> . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[jordancarlin]

Ok. If you think it is worthwhile I can take a look. Just noticed that they were there but not doing anything so something definitely needs to change. If it seems like more trouble than it's worth I might just disable them.

[davidharrishmc]

There have been several times when I've wanted iterelf for quick testing. But without running in parallel, it's too slow to be regularly useful.

[jordancarlin]

I can take a look, but I worry that updating it to run in parallel will force it to replicate a lot of the functionality already in regression-wally.