Re: Problem with performstruct test

[Michael Davidsaver <mdavidsaver@gmail.com>]

On 09/19/2018 11:42 AM, Johnson, Andrew N. wrote:
> On 09/19/2018 12:56 PM, Michael Davidsaver wrote:
>>>> ... There are a few other similar test
>>> programs spread around the Base tree which are intended for manual
>>> operation only and should not be added to TESTS.
>>
>> Other than not having "test" in the executable name, I haven't noticed
>> any systematic way to distinguish these.  (eg. cvtFastPerform in libCom/test)
> 
> Having "[Pp]erform" in the executable name implies a performance test,
> which is really what I was talking about above:
> 
> modules/pvData/testApp/O.linux-x86_64/performstruct
> modules/pvAccess/testApp/O.linux-x86_64/testGetPerformance
> modules/pvAccess/testApp/O.linux-x86_64/testMonitorPerformance
> modules/libcom/test/O.linux-x86_64/epicsThreadPerform
> modules/libcom/test/O.linux-x86_64/epicsAtomicPerform
> modules/libcom/test/O.linux-x86_64/cvtFastPerform
> 
> The two pvAccess programs are actually being installed, is this
> intentional/correct?

Perhaps originally, though it may have been Matej not knowing about TESTPROD.
I find myself wanting to skip installing test* and *Example

> $ ls -1 bin/linux-x86_64
> eget
> pipelineServiceExample
> pvget
> pvinfo
> pvlist
> pvput
> rpcClientExample
> rpcServiceAsyncExample
> rpcServiceExample
> rpcWildServiceExample
> testGetPerformance
> testMonitorPerformance
> testServer