[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH 5/5] Improved test silent5.test.
From: |
Stefano Lattarini |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH 5/5] Improved test silent5.test. |
Date: |
Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:13:11 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.12.1 (Linux/2.6.30-2-686; KDE/4.3.4; i686; ; ) |
At Sunday 25 April 2010, Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden>
wrote:
> > > > grep mv stdout && Exit 1
> >
> > On the contrary, this seems too much strict, since it would fail
> > (with GNU make at least) if the automake source tree is placed in
> > a directory whose name contains the `mv' substring.
>
> Indeed. Grepping for '^mv ' and ' mv ' should work though.
Or better again, we could strip off the `Entering/Leaving directory'
lines outputted by GNU make. WDYT?
> > The other silent*.test tests might have a similar problem too.
> > This should IMHO be addressed in a different patch series. WDYT?
>
> Well, fix this first then have the new patches be correct right
> away. There is no point adding new code with known bugs.
Agreed.
> > Yes, more sanity checks wouldn't hurt I guess.
> > Should I amend the patch, or are you going to do that yourself?
>
> Feel free to amend.
Thanks. My question is now moot anyway, as I have to amend all the
patches for the GNU make "problem".
> > > > + # Ensure a clean reconfiguration/rebuild.
> > > > $MAKE clean
> > > > $MAKE maintainer-clean
> > > > + rm -f foo5.c foo6.[ch] sub/baz5.c sub/baz6.[ch]
> > >
> > > Wait, maintainer-clean should have removed all these files at
> > > this point (and some of the other lex/yacc tests should have
> > > this tested, too). Does that not work for you?
> >
> > No, it works just fine; but in the (unlikely) case of a failure,
> > it could cause false positives (or even false negatives!) in
> > silent5.test.
>
> Well, but failure in case of a bug is a good thing, even if it is
> drive-by failure. At least for semantics that are known to work.
OK, then I'll turn that `rm -f' into sanity checks with `test ! -f'.
> > Also, silent5.test is not supposed to test `maintainer-clean'
> > w.r.t. Lex/Yacc;
>
> No; but one general idea is that if you have a test for some
> specific semantic X, then in tests where you don't check for X,
> you may assume that generally, X just works. OK?
OK. But I'd feel safer to add a small sanity check, at least (in this
case, the `test ! -f' cited above).
Regards,
Stefano
- [PATCH 0/5] Modularize testing of automake silent-mode for languages != C, Stefano Lattarini, 2010/04/22
- [PATCH 1/5] New test silentlex.test (Automake/Lex silent-mode)., Stefano Lattarini, 2010/04/22
- [PATCH 2/5] New test silentyacc.test (Automake/Yacc silent-mode)., Stefano Lattarini, 2010/04/22
- [PATCH 3/5] New test silentcxx.test (Automake/C++ silent-mode)., Stefano Lattarini, 2010/04/22
- [PATCH 4/5] New tests for Automake silent-mode with Fortran., Stefano Lattarini, 2010/04/22
- [PATCH 5/5] Improved test silent5.test., Stefano Lattarini, 2010/04/22
- Re: [PATCH 5/5] Improved test silent5.test., Ralf Wildenhues, 2010/04/25
- Re: [PATCH 5/5] Improved test silent5.test., Stefano Lattarini, 2010/04/25
- Re: [PATCH 5/5] Improved test silent5.test., Ralf Wildenhues, 2010/04/25
- Re: [PATCH 5/5] Improved test silent5.test.,
Stefano Lattarini <=
- Re: [PATCH 5/5] Improved test silent5.test., Ralf Wildenhues, 2010/04/25
- Re: [PATCH 5/5] Improved test silent5.test., Stefano Lattarini, 2010/04/25
- Re: [PATCH 5/5] Improved test silent5.test., Ralf Wildenhues, 2010/04/25
Re: [PATCH 0/5] Modularize testing of automake silent-mode for languages != C, Stefano Lattarini, 2010/04/25