Been talking about this in #p5p, so far it seems the problem is the test is
fragile, and patching the test is fine.
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Chad Granum <exodi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, new problem I have found based on the change to restoring $@, $!, and
> $?.
>
> perl-bleads ext/XS-APItest/t/svpeek.t has 2 test failures.
>
> One tests $! and it *looks like* it assumes something recently looked at
> $! from a string context:
>
> like (DPeek ($!), qr'^PVMG\("', '$!');
>
>
> I can fix the test like this:
>
> # This tests expects that $! will have been used as a string recently.
>> my $foo = "$!";
>> like (DPeek ($!), qr'^PVMG\("', '$!');
>
>
> The other checks $? and *looks like* it verifies it has not been looked at
> by anything:
>
> if ($^O eq 'VMS') {
>> # VMS defines COMPLEX_STATUS and upgrades $? to PVLV
>> is (DPeek ($?), 'PVLV()', '$?');
>> } else {
>> is (DPeek ($?), 'PVMG()', '$?');
>> }
>
>
> This can be fixed by a similar trick (not tested in vms as I have no vms
> system):
>
> if ($^O eq 'VMS') {
>> local $?; # Reset anything Test::* has done to it.
>> # VMS defines COMPLEX_STATUS and upgrades $? to PVLV
>> is (DPeek ($?), 'PVLV()', '$?');
>> } else {
>> local $?; # Reset anything Test::* has done to it.
>> is (DPeek ($?), 'PVMG()', '$?');
>> }
>
>
> This was never a problem when we localized $! and $@. But now that we are
> reading the current value, then restoring it, we no longer preserve the
> internals of the variables, just the surface values.
>
> This is the only test I have found broken by this. A test in the perl test
> suite itself. I have not found anything on cpan broken by this, but my
> testing is not a full smoke.
>
> I am just reaching out to see if anyone predicts this is an *actual*
> problem? Is it just as simple as updating the 1 failing test and calling it
> good, or is this actually a scary thing? If it is scary, then I would love
> pointers on how I can actually preserve the internal state of the variables
> as well as their value, but I would really prefer not to do that if I do
> not have to.
>
> -Chad
>
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 12:39 AM, Aristotle Pagaltzis <pagalt...@gmx.de>
> wrote:
>
>> * Chad Granum <exodi...@gmail.com> [2016-01-18 06:55]:
>> > Which behavior do you want, preserve one, preserve all, preserve what
>> > is requested in arguments?
>>
>> I didn’t consider that. I was thinking ->release would take an optional
>> bool flag and that’s all. But you’re right that this would not be enough
>> and that providing enough interface to cover all the cases makes it too
>> complicated to be worth it.
>>
>> > my $err = $@;
>> > $ctx->release();
>> > $@ = $err;
>>
>> Heh, which implies an obvious and amusing improvement:
>>
>> { local $@; $ctx->release }
>>
>> Which is *easier* than any special interface, too. So, scrap that.
>>
>> Regards,
>> --
>> Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
>>
>
>
