Re: infrastructure patch: improve test handling

On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 01:07:45PM -0400, Kurt Mosiejczuk wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 02:57:11PM +0200, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 02:43:37PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
> > > - add test to the list of things that can be rebuilt/cleaned
> > > - recognize PORTS_PRIVSEP as a special case for automated testing,
> > > specifically, set TEST_IS_INTERACTIVE=network for testsuites that require
> > > network access.
> > These make sense but I have yet to test them - I started looking into
> > more convenient clean targets just earlier this day :)
>
> The "test=clean" and "retest" targets work great for me. I like them.
>
> > > @@ -3015,9 +3020,18 @@ Empty by default.
> > > .It Ev TEST_IS_INTERACTIVE
> > > Set to
> > > .Sq Yes
> > > -if port needs human interaction to run its tests, or set to
> > > +if port needs human interaction to run its tests, set to
> > > .Sq X11
> > > -if the tests need an active X11 display to work.
> > > +if the tests need an active X11 display to work,
> > > +set to
> > > +.Sq network
> > > +if the tests need access network
> > Either "network access" or "access to network", but I suggest the former.
>
> I agree on this.
>
> I tested TEST_IS_INTERACTIVE=network with www/py-requests, and it seems to
> just run the tests even though I run with PORTS_PRIVSEP=Yes.
>
> superhell$ make show=TEST_IS_INTERACTIVE
> network
> superhell$ vi Makefile
> superhell$ make show=PORTS_PRIVSEP
> Yes
> superhell$ make show=_TEST_IS_INTERACTIVE
> network
> superhell$ make show=_IGNORE_TEST

RTFM
*INTERACTIVE stuff does not do anything special by default, unless you
trigger it, e.g., see BATCH and INTERACTIVE in bsd.port.mk(5)

(that's also somewhat obvious from the patch)