code review 5701051: testing: don't run examples if -test.run is set

testing: don't run examples if -test.run is set
If we're restricting tests, don't blindly include examples; things can get noisy.

[r, 2012-02-27 00:25:55]

Hello golang-dev@googlegroups.com,

I'd like you to review this change to
https://code.google.com/p/go/

[bradfitz, 2012-02-27 00:27:58]

LGTM

But what if we're debugging an example?  Maybe just apply the same
filtering rules to the names of ExampleFoo?


On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:25 AM, <r@golang.org> wrote:

> Reviewers: golang-dev_googlegroups.com,
>
> Message:
> Hello golang-dev@googlegroups.com,
>
> I'd like you to review this change to
> https://code.google.com/p/go/
>
>
> Description:
> testing: don't run examples if -test.run is set
> If we're restricting tests, don't blindly include examples; things can
> get noisy.
>
> Please review this at
http://codereview.appspot.com/**5701051/<http://codereview.appspot.com/5701051/>
>
> Affected files:
>  M src/pkg/testing/example.go
>
>
> Index: src/pkg/testing/example.go
> ==============================**==============================**=======
> --- a/src/pkg/testing/example.go
> +++ b/src/pkg/testing/example.go
> @@ -20,6 +20,9 @@
>  }
>
>  func RunExamples(examples []InternalExample) (ok bool) {
> +       if *match != "" {
> +               return // Don't run examples if testing is restricted:
> we're debugging.
> +       }
>        ok = true
>
>        var eg InternalExample
>
>
>

[r, 2012-02-27 00:46:47]

A better solution might be to mimic -test.run and -test.bench and add
-test.example

[r, 2012-02-27 01:03:59]

*** Abandoned ***