Commit graph

3 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Avery Pennarun
c06d1fba40 {ood,sources,targets}: fix relative paths; turn missing targets into sources.
When we check dependencies and a previously-is_generated dependency
existed before, but no longer does, forget that it was is_generated.
This slightly improves the situation where as a project evolves, a file
that used to be a target gets removed, and then later is re-added as a
static source file.  (It doesn't fix the other variant, where a file is
changed from target to source in a single atomic change, and is never
missing.  That one will be trickier to handle.)

While adding a test for this behaviour, I discovered that redo-sources,
redo-targets, and redo-ood were reporting their output relative to
STARTDIR instead of relative to $PWD, so fix that too.
2018-11-23 19:18:43 -05:00
Avery Pennarun
f345eae290 minimal/do: redo vs redo-ifchange, and fix empty target handling.
We previously assumed that redo and redo-ifchange are the same in
minimal/do's design, because it rebuilds all targets on every run, and
so there's no reason to ever build the same target more than once.

Unfortunately that's incorrect: if you run 'redo x' from two points in
a single run (or even twice in the same .do file), we expect x to be
built twice.  If you wanted redo to decide whether to build it the
second time, you should have used redo-ifchange.

t/102-empty/touchtest was trying to test for this.  However, a
second bug in minimal/do made the test pass anyway.  minimal/do would
*always* rebuild any target x that produced no output, not caring
whether it had tried to build before, whether you used redo or
redo-ifchange.  And while we tested that redo would redo a file that
had been deleted, we didn't ensure that it would redo a file that was
*not* deleted, nor that redo-ifchange would *not* redo that file.

Fix both bugs in minimal/do, and make t/102-empty/touchtest cover the
missing cases.
2018-10-17 01:54:29 -04:00
Avery Pennarun
7822f5a5bb t/*: rearrange tests into numbered directories.
It was getting way too ad-hoc in there.  Let's reorganize the tests so that
there's a good, obvious, suggested sequence to run them in.
2012-02-08 01:56:50 -05:00