[Ns-developers] Enabling subsets of ns-3's modules

[Tom Henderson]

(trimming)

>> Pavel asked whether we could make src/examples into a module itself
>> that could be enabled/disabled like any module. That seems like a good
>> idea to me.
>>
> Examples are different than modules, and it doesn't make sense to treat
> them the same way.
>
> It's already possible in waf to turn the examples on and on using
> --enable-examples or --disable-examples.
>
> How about if I add a variable (enable_examples) to .ns3rc that turns the
> examples on and off:
>
> enable_examples = True
>
>> I asked whether building of tests should be enabled by default?
>> Consensus was "no", that instead we should provide ./waf configure
>> --enable-tests, and also support this option in .ns3rc file somehow.
>>
> I will look into adding the --enable-tests and --disable-tests options
> to waf.
>
> How about if I add a variable (enable_tests) to .ns3rc that turns the
> tests on and off:
>
> enable_tests = False

these solutions would be fine with me.  I think the suggestion to make 
examples a module was out of a desire for uniformity, but in thinking 
about it now, it does have some different properties from a normal 
module, such as not implicitly increasing the list of compiled modules 
due to dependencies (examples will likely depend on almost everything).

>
>
>> Pavel suggested to get rid of build verification test (BVT) and unit
>> test distinctions in the existing tests; to make them all UNIT now
>> that they are split from the main model code. This was agreed.
>>
> What is the value in doing this?

I think the suggestion may have been that this distinction is not 
relevant to our project right now; we don't have a test designed as a 
true BVT that is designed to avoid running UNIT tests (because running 
all UNIT tests is pretty fast), and that having a middle ground between 
the outcome "all models compile" and "all models compile and all UNIT 
tests pass" is not that useful.

I do not care strongly about this but I couldn't really argue with the 
proposal.  However, you are looking at the tests more carefully now and 
maybe you can find examples where we should reconsider this.

>
> Should current BVT's stay in their module's library of should they go
> into a test module library (like UNIT tests now)?

I believe the proposal was to reclassify what are now called BVTs to 
UNITs, unless they were so limited in scope that they can't really 
qualify even as UNIT, in which case possibly to remove them.

>
> What about SYSTEM tests? Should they also become UNIT tests?

No.

- Tom