Stefano Lattarini skrev 2011-11-26 00:11: > On Friday 25 November 2011, Peter Rosin wrote: >> That works, but isn't it an awful lot of code for a corner case? >> > Possibly, but I prefer to be conservative in tests, and not relax > them unless necessary. Also, since the new code is extensivley > commented, a future developer will know why it's there, and thus > also whether dropping it would be acceptable. > >> You choice though. >> > I'd say we keep this. I'll prepare a patch tomorrow.
Ok, cool. >> I don't think we should, because it is never correct to add the >> extra slash after $(DESTDIR) >> > Right. > >> and adding a comment about it just >> adds to the confusion by somehow stating that it would be >> desirable to add that slash, but that we sadly can't. On the >> contrary, it's just plain wrong with the slash, and you'd have >> to add that comment all over the place in order to be consistent. >> But again, your choice. >> > Let's just drop any hypotetical extra comment. I'll prepare a patch > in your name if you don't beat me at it. Thanks. >>>> So, with those two fixes, one fail left, i.e. transform2.test. >>>> >>> Could you let me know if my proposed change above make it correctly >>> skipped? If yes, I'll prepare three proper patches tomorrow -- unless >>> you want to beat me at it ;-), in which case, please put a reference >>> to this thread in the git commit message and in the ChangeLog entries. >> >> It would be better with an xfail in my opinion, if that's possible to >> accomplish conditionally? >> > Sadly, not easily (we could extend XFAIL_TESTS at configure time if we > detect the above Cygwin limitation, but that's quote involved, and IMO > would put the logic in the wrong place, i.e., configure.ac). Maybe in > a next automake version we could add a new special exit status for test > scripts to signal "expected failure", like e.g. `77' is used to signal > "skipped test"? Still, that's for automake 1.11.3 at most, so I see > only two ways out for now: A special exit status would only be another version of skip, with no chance of unexpected success (if I read your proposal right). That's not right either. > 1. Add the test skip I proposed to branch-1.11 only, but *remove it* > after the 1.11.2 release. > 2. Just let the test fail, and be prepared to deal with some spurious > reports. > > I'm 60-40 in favor of 2, since it doesn't add yet more noise to our > repository. WDYT? I'm also in favor of leaving it as a plain old fail. A skip is a bit too silent, and it's not like the bug list is flooding with reports on the subject... Cheers, Peter
