Jim Meyering wrote: > Imagine that the first 10 tests pass, then each of the remaining ones is > killed via e.g., SIGHUP. ... > a naive search for "FAIL:" in the build output would find nothing.
Yes, and it should be this way, IMO. Each time a user sees a "FAIL:", he should be encouraged to investigate. Whereas in the gettext test suite, often when I sent SIGINTs, I saw some tests fail without explanation. (This was due to a missing 'exit' statement in the trap handler, but it would be the same if there was an 'exit 1' in the trap handler.) I guessed that the FAIL report was due to the SIGINT and did not investigate. But I don't think this attitude should be encouraged. Similarly, when I get reports from Nelson Beebe with lots of failing tests, I don't want to spend time on fake failures that were due to, maybe, a shutdown of his virtual machine or something like this. > The final result would be highly misleading: > > ======================== > All 10 tests passed > (300 tests were not run) > ======================== But before this final result, you would see 300 times Skipping test: caught fatal signal SKIP: test-foo1 Skipping test: caught fatal signal SKIP: test-foo2 Skipping test: caught fatal signal SKIP: test-bar ... That should be enough of an explanation, no? And it will tell us that there's no gnulib bug to investigate. Bruno
