[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [PATCH] {maint} maintcheck: look for problematic names of testcases

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: [PATCH] {maint} maintcheck: look for problematic names of testcases
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 06:24:28 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2010-08-04)

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:01:25AM CET:
> Hello Ralf.  I fear we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue (see
> below).

No, we don't.  So far, I've only asked questions.  I haven't made up my
mind yet.

> Given that, I won't apply my patch (unless, of course, you
> change your mind and decide to approve it anyway).

Don't be discouraged up front, please.

> On Tuesday 15 March 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:51:29PM CET:
> > >  
> > > <>

> > > Subject: [PATCH] maintcheck: look for problematic names of testcases
> > > 
> > > The stub created by default by `tests/defs' obtains
> > > the first argument of AC_INIT from the test name, and this can
> > > cause some supported autoconf versions to fail with a spurious
> > > error if that test name contains the name of an m4 builtin (e.g.,
> > > `defn' or `undefine').
> > > 
> > > See for example the bug fixed by commit v1.11-287-g1325a8a.
> > > 
> > > This change add a maintainer check that warns about test names
> > > which are possibly problematic in this regard.
> > 
> > Wouldn't it be easier to just require a fixed Autoconf version?
> >
> Unfortunately no, as also the latest version (2.68) is affected by
> the bug; see my recent report to bug-autoconf:
>  <>

So, can we just quote the argument so it's not detected by m4?

  me_quoted=`echo "$me" | sed 's,..,&@\&t@,g'`
  echo "AC_INIT([$me_quoted], [1.0])"

?  If yes, why do you think that would be wrong, or over-engineering,
to do this?

> > Alternatively, if we can't do that: wouldn't it be more robust
> > to let the machinery rename problematic names on the fly?
> >
> That smells like over-engineering to me; after all, up until today,
> the problemtic test names have been 3 (sinclude.test, include.test,
> comments-in-var-defn.test), in face of ~ 1000 tests.

A three-line patch that avoids the problem for sure doesn't smell like
over-engineering to me, when compared to a hundred-line patch that
requires me to keep thinking about it in the future.

> > It's nicer to avoid bugs than having to work around them.
> >
> I have to say that, when it comes to error checking, I tend to prefer
> automation that warns me noisily (+1 if it also offers advices) to
> automation that tries to second-guess me behind my shoulders.

Who said something about second-guessing?


reply via email to

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