"Robert P. Goldman" <rpgold...@sift.net> writes:
> Do we have a way of indicating that we expect a test to fail?
>
> There's a string in the output that talks about "Unexpected test
> failures in..." but I am not sure if there's actually any notion of
> expected vs. unexpected test failure. IIRC in the past when I knew a
> test would fail I just used reader macros to make sure it wouldn't run.
>
> This is actually not as good as having the test run but not cause a failure.
>
> I ask because I get test failures in clisp on run-program, because
> somehow clisp lets the common-lisp prompt leak into the output of
> running a program. So I get something like
>
> ("[4]> hello, world") instead of ("hello, world")
>
> IIRC this is a known clisp problem,
It looks to me rather like a bug in the test.
You're not capturing the output of the program correctly.
Actually, you would have to work very hard to get this concatenation. I
have no idea why you would do that.
[10]> (with-open-stream (in (run-program "bash"
:arguments '("-c" "echo 'Hello, world!'")
:output :stream))
(read-line in))
"Hello, world!" ;
NIL
[11]>
> and may even be fixed in the clisp
> source. But there hasn't been a clisp release for almost five years now,
> and I don't intend to build it from source.
>
> With no releases since 2010, IMO clisp is only "living dead," and
> possibly simply "dead."
With less than 80 open issues, clisp doesn't NEED any new release for
now.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
“The factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a
dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to
keep the man from touching the equipment.” -- Carl Bass CEO Autodesk
