[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: gnustep-base tests

From: Eric Heintzmann
Subject: Re: gnustep-base tests
Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 13:33:11 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.7.2

Le 14/05/2016 07:39, Richard Frith-Macdonald a écrit :
>> On 10 May 2016, at 23:29, Stefan Bidigaray <address@hidden> wrote:
>> I feel like I'm having deja vu. We spoke about this a few months back. The 
>> issue is that the ICU's "display" functions are not guaranteed to have a 
>> stable output. Makes sense, because languages and conventions change over 
>> time.
>> This issue is unrelated to this problem. Without looking at the code and 
>> going only off memory, the issue has to do with the fact that we're testing 
>> for a particular behavior, but ICU changed since the test was written. It's 
>> tough writing tests for ICU, because there are no guarantees anywhere. The 
>> only guarantee is that a human being will be able to interpret it. The ICU 
>> output changed some time around version 4.4 or 48.
>> Still, these shouldn't be a "hopeful" just because the tests should always 
>> pass, a (nil), for example, is not acceptable.
> I think we have actually only seen two different formats from the ICU library.
> So I took the simple option to allow both;
>       /* Different versions of ICU use different formats, so we need to
>        * permit alternative results.
>        */
>       str = [fmt stringFromNumber: num];
>       PASS([str isEqual: @"(R$1.235)"] || [str isEqual: @"_R$1.235"],
>         "negativeFormat used for -ve number");
I will apply this patch in debian.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]