After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 756395 - check: fix support for CK_DEFAULT_TIMEOUT
check: fix support for CK_DEFAULT_TIMEOUT
Status: RESOLVED INCOMPLETE
Product: GStreamer
Classification: Platform
Component: common
git master
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: git master
Assigned To: GStreamer Maintainers
GStreamer Maintainers
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2015-10-11 16:35 UTC by Florin Apostol
Modified: 2018-05-01 08:25 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---

Attachments
proposed patch (2.60 KB, patch)
2015-10-11 16:41 UTC, Florin Apostol 		none Details | Review

Description Florin Apostol 2015-10-11 16:35:54 UTC 
The makefiles use CK_DEFAULT_TIMEOUT for configuring the amount of time a test can run before being killed. This environment variable is supposed to be configurable by the user, but the makefiles will override whatever user will configure.
Comment 1 Florin Apostol 2015-10-11 16:41:09 UTC 
Created attachment 313066 [details] [review]
proposed patch
Comment 2 Tim-Philipp Müller 2017-07-15 11:17:18 UTC 
Thanks for the patches. We're working on moving towards the Meson build system, so I'd rather look into fixing it properly there.

Problem is we still seem to CK_DEFAULT_TIMEOUT there, and it's more difficult to use an externally-set value here.

Question is: why do you care about this? I mean: what's your use case?

If you want to increase the timeout per test, e.g. because you're on a slow machine, you can set the CK_TIMEOUT_MULTIPLIER environment variable.

Would that be sufficient for you?
Comment 3 Tim-Philipp Müller 2018-05-01 08:25:32 UTC 
Closing this bug report as no further information has been provided. Please feel free to reopen this bug report if you can provide the information that was asked for in a previous comment.
Thanks!