Unit tests of internal functions
Nicolas.Williams at sun.com
Tue Jan 5 13:54:44 EST 2010
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 01:50:37PM -0500, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
> --On Monday, January 04, 2010 02:50:42 PM -0600 Nicolas Williams
> <Nicolas.Williams at sun.com> wrote:
> >I favor (1). However, you could do a hybrid of (1) and (3). Namely,
> >alter the symbol export list according to whether you're making the
> >check target. One would "make check && make clobber && make install".
> Ahhh!!!! My eyes are bleeding!!!
> With _very_ few exceptions, make targets should be idempotent.
> "make all check install" and "make all install" had better not install
> different versions of the library.
I agree, and still prefer #1. I did say "could", not "should". I'd not
object too strongly to the hybrid approach for the simple reason that
this is not exactly a rare thing (e.g., SQLite3 builds differently for
testing than not; the SQLite3 folks have pretty much the same
how-to-unit-test-private- interfaces problem, and that is their
More information about the krbdev