similar to: [LLVMdev] Validating LLVM

On Nov 10, 2008, at 12:59 PM, David Greene wrote: > Back during the LLVM developer's meeting, I talked with some of you > about a > proposal to "validate" llvm. Now that 2.4 is almost out the door, > it seems a > good time to start that discussion. > > I've written up a detailed proposal and attached it to this > message. The goal > is to ease

On Nov 10, 2008, at 12:59 PM, David Greene wrote: > I've written up a detailed proposal and attached it to this message. Yeah, mirrors in many ways something I've thought about for a while now. Roughly, cron (or while :; do) testers that figure out quality and create tags when that quality is met. Release branching can then just happen from the `prerelease' tag, and largely

On Wednesday 12 November 2008 00:33, Bill Wendling wrote: > > Please take a look and send feedback toi the list. I'd like to get > > the > > process moving early in the 2.4 cycle. > > Hi Dave, > > Here are my opinions: > > I like the idea of regular validation tagging. However, I think that > it should be as automated as possible. I'm worried that

I''ve just put two plugins on RubyForge. Included below are the READMEs. You can get the plugins at svn://rubyforge.org//var/svn/valirefl/validation_reflection/trunk svn://rubyforge.org//var/svn/clientsidevali/client_side_validation/trunk Michael Validation Reflection ===================== Version 0.2, 2006-08-06 This plugin adds reflective access to validations -

On Nov 11, 2008, at 10:33 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > * Regression Tests - This catches obvious errors, but not major ones. > * Full Bootstrap of LLVM-GCC - LLVM-GCC is a complex program. It's our > second indication if something has gone horribly awry. > * Nightly Testsuite - A very good suite of tests; much more extensive > than a simple bootstrap. > * LLVM-GCC Testsuite -

> to a testsuite, we can use them for validation. But I wouldn't want to > require a validation to pass some set of random tests that shifts each test > cycle. This is easy to fix: just specify a starting seed for the PRNG. However I think you should get past your prejudice against tests that shift each cycle, since changing tests have the advantage of increased test coverage.

Lately our random C program generator has seemed quite successful at catching regressions in llvm-gcc that the test suite misses. I'd suggest running some fixed number of random programs as part of the validation suite. On a fastish quad core I can test about 25,000 programs in 24 hours. Our hacked valgrind (which looks for volatile miscompilations) is a bottleneck, leaving this out

On Monday 10 November 2008 22:17, John Regehr wrote: > Lately our random C program generator has seemed quite successful at > catching regressions in llvm-gcc that the test suite misses. I'd suggest > running some fixed number of random programs as part of the validation > suite. On a fastish quad core I can test about 25,000 programs in 24 The problem with random tests is that

Howdy, I''m working on my first RoR project, and I want to build a form. The tricky thing is, this form needs to insert / update against two models, each with their own validation rules. Unfortunately, I''m having an incredible amount of difficulty with the error handling, specifically the fields wrapped in <div class=''fieldWithErrors''></div>

Considering an object with several has_many :through => associations, what is the ''best'' way to handle validations? As an example: class Student < ActiveRecord::Base # some attrbutes like # :name # :grade # relationships has_many :students_assignment, :dependent => :destroy has_many :assignments, :through => :students_assignment has_many

> validation runs. That way you get the benefits of random testing > without spurious changes in validation status dependent on randomly > generated tests. Sounds great. I'm not trying to push random testing on people who don't want it, but I think it is useful to the LLVM project and it's not clear that I have the resources to keep doing it myself indefinitely. The tools

On Wednesday 12 November 2008 02:20, Bill Wendling wrote: > On Nov 11, 2008, at 11:00 PM, Óscar Fuentes wrote: > > Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> writes: > > > > [snip] > > > >> All four of the above should be run on at least a nightly basis (more > >> frequently for some, like the regression tests). Each of these are > >>

I have a User model with an email attribute. I''m using the following validations: validates_confirmation_of :email validates_format_of :email, :with => RFC822::EmailAddress, :message => "must be a valid address in the form user@domain.com" validates_uniqueness_of :email, :message => "address has already been taken. If you''ve forgotten your

FeedValidator is an interface to the W3C Feed Validation online service, based on its SOAP 1.2 support. It helps to find errors in RSS or ATOM feeds. FeedValidator add a new assertion (assert_valid_feed) which you can use in Rails applications. This assertion implements a cache to improve the performance of the tests and to not abuse of the W3C Feed Validation online service. = Download The

As we begin designing the proposed validation process, we should think about what the criteria for a successful validation should be. In the initial proposal I suggested the "make check" on llvm should pass as should the tests in llvm-test. According to Tanya, not all of llvm-test passes. Do we have a sense of how far away from a full passing llvm-test we are? I also know that a

On Thursday 16 July 2009 14:04, Daniel Dunbar wrote: > 2009/7/15 Török Edwin <edwintorok at gmail.com>: > > I'm not too keen about seeing buildbots play with trunk ;) > > > > How about starting simple, and just auto-tagging builds that work? > > Could be done per OS/arch, and one global tag when all buildbots pass. > > I don't know anything about svn

I can''t seem to figure out how to get child validation error messages to display. I''m going through the simple blog example DHH uses in his video. In the example, a comment belongs_to a post. Validating posts works fine and the errors are displayed as they should be. When I try to validate a comment using: validates_presence_of :summary It does the proper validation by not

Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> writes: [snip] > All four of the above should be run on at least a nightly basis (more > frequently for some, like the regression tests). Each of these are > automated, making that easy. If there are no regressions from the > above four, we could tag that revision as being potentially "valid". If a new test case is created

Hi there, I''m building a rails application for German and English speakers. However, I''m having some problems validating German-specific characters (????). I have a tag-model which validates format of :name, :with => /^\w+$/. This throws an exception if german characters are used. My tables are all utf-8 and my environment.rb has the lines $KCODE = ''u''

I''ve got a user object which has quite a few attributes mapped to the database. As of right now I''ve got some validations in the model like: validates_presence_of :password, :message => "You must specify a valid password." validates_confirmation_of :password, :message => "Password doesn''t match the confirmation." validates_presence_of