On Mon 08 Nov 2004 22:59, Abe Timmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Op een grimmige herfstdag (Monday 08 November 2004 08:43),schreef H.Merijn > Brand: > > On Mon 08 Nov 2004 02:06, Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 01:02:00AM +0000, Steve Hay wrote: > > > > O X -Duseithreads > > > > O X -Duseithreads -Dusemymalloc > > > > O O -Duseithreads -Duselargefiles > > > > O O -Duseithreads -Duselargefiles -Dusemymalloc > > > > > > > > | +--------- -DDEBUGGING > > > > > > > > +----------- no debugging > > > > > > > > > > > > Failures: (common-args) -DINST_TOP=$(INST_DRV)\Smoke\doesntexist > > > > [default] -DDEBUGGING -Duseithreads > > > > [default] -DDEBUGGING -Duseithreads -Dusemymalloc > > > > Inconsistent test results (between TEST and harness): > > > > ../lib/DBM_Filter/t/01error.t...........dubious > > > > > > Is there any to be worried about by these? Failing this test with "X" > > > seems to have been a common problem since (about) 21st October, but it > > > doesn't repeat perfectly every night. 5.9.2 isn't failing in this way, so > > > I'm somewhat confused. > > > > I have noticed that 'X's also come from "skip" failed tests. > > These are more a warning than a failure, if warning at all. > > IMO skipped tests shouldn't fail. Either the test is skipped (not executed) > and thus PASS or it is a TODO test. That way everybody knows it is no > surprise that the test fails (or passes).
This time it's a know failure for wich we know it will never be fixed, and that failure is documented in the delta. I've changed the tests to do not ok 43 # SKIP see perl583delta which is IMHO the only correct way to handle these errors > > IMHO skips are "not ok" OR "ok" tests that are skipped for > > a more or less valid reason. > > > > My recent HP-UX 10.20 skips all changed from "F" to "X", > > because the normal test run sees lines like > > > > not ok 43 - skip blah blah blah > > > > and harness filters them and reports them as skipped, regardless > > if they where ok or not ok > > > > Abe, would it be possible for the primary filter of T::S to skip > > these too? Meaning for /^(not\s+)?ok\s+\d+\s+[-#]\s+(?i:skip\S*[: ])/ > > not to see it as "F"? > > I'll try, but don't hold your breath here. Too much work at the daytime job > and my head is still with the VMS porting... > (I only want this in with some tests, both in t/skip_filter.t and my private > test-suite) Maybe I might cough up some tuits and propose a patch -- H.Merijn Brand Amsterdam Perl Mongers (http://amsterdam.pm.org/) using perl-5.6.1, 5.8.5, & 5.9.x, and 809 on HP-UX 10.20 & 11.00, 11i, AIX 4.3, AIX 5.2, SuSE 9.1, and Win2k. http://www.cmve.net/~merijn/ http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] send smoke reports to: [EMAIL PROTECTED], QA: http://qa.perl.org
