Re: [PATCH 2/5] {test-protocols} parallel-tests: new recognized test result 'ERROR'

[Ralf Wildenhues]

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 11:38:18AM CEST:
> On Monday 18 July 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 12:37:07AM CEST:
> > > +  - The parallel-tests harness has a new test result 'ERROR', that can be
> > > +    used to signal e.g., unexpected or internal errors, or failures to 
> > > set
> > > +    up test case scenarios.
> > 
> > The NEWS entry could be a bit more precise in that the ERROR state was
> > actually used before already with exit status 99, just that it is named
> > ERROR now.
> >
> What about this?
> 
>   - Test scripts that exit with status 99 to signal an "hard error" (e.g.,
>     and unexpected or internal error, or a failure to set up the test case
>     scenario) have their outcome reported as an 'ERROR' now.  Previous
>     versions of automake reported such an outcome as a 'FAIL' (the only
>     difference with normal failures being that hard errors were counted
>     as failures even when the test originating them was listed in
>     XFAIL_TESTS).

Cool.

> > (Please check whether the semantics of 99 already were in a stable release,
> >
> Well, an exit status of `99' has been triggering an hard error since at
> least automake 1.11 (assuming `parallel-tests' was in use).  Is this what
> you were asking,

Yup, thanks.

> or have I misunderstood?

> > A description of ERROR semantics needs to be part of automake.texi as
> > well.
> >
> Doing that properly will require a small reorganization of the "Support
> for test suites" chapter, so I'd rather do that in a follow-up patch
> (which I will start working on shortly).

OK.  Just so we don't forget.

> > Also, are you going to followup with Autoconf to rename Autotest's hard
> > failure state ERROR as well?  We should agree on common naming and
> > semantics, so the two systems are not harder to learn than necessary.
> >
> Good idea, consistency is always nice.

Thanks.

> > I'm OK with this change once these issues are resolved.
> > 
> > As a minor detail however, please remove the '====' greps, I've already
> > mentioned why I consider '=' in the output not a good idea.
> >
> But those greps are there to ensure that the testsuite summary is not
> unduly colorized; and since the summary at this point is still looks
> like:
> 
>   ====================================================
>   All 2 tests behaved as expected (1 expected failure)
>   ====================================================
> 
> those grepping checks have to stay IMNSHO.

Okeydokey for now.  Except of course that I suggested to not have '='
signs in the new output format.  ;-)

Cheers,
Ralf