On 02.09.22 18:57, Andres Freund wrote:
> Is it worth running ninja -t missingdeps as a test? At the time we run tests
> we'll obviously have built and thus collected "real" dependencies, so we would
> have the necessary information to determine whether dependencies are missing.
> I think it'd be fine to do so only for ninja >= 1.11, rather than falling back
> to the llvm python implementation, which is much slower (0.068s vs
> 3.760s). And also because it's not as obvious how to include the python script.
>
> Alternatively, we could just document that ninja -t missingdeps is worth
> running. Perhaps at the top of the toplevel build.meson file?
In the GNU/make world there is a distinction between "check" and
"maintainer-check" for this kind of thing.
I think here if we put these kinds of things into a different, what's
the term, "suite", then that would be a clear way to collect them and be
able to run them all easily.
