I went ahead and committed what was there and ran tests to make sure it runs clean before doing so.
> On Jan 8, 2016, at 10:48 AM, Yann Ylavic <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Paul Spangler <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 1/8/2016 6:49 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >>> >>> Just noticed that the test framework reports issues w/ sessions on trunk: >>> >>> t/modules/session.t ................. 1/105 # Failed test 8 in >>> t/modules/session.t at line 63 fail #2 >>> # Failed test 18 in t/modules/session.t at line 63 fail #4 >>> # Failed test 38 in t/modules/session.t at line 63 fail #8 >>> # Failed test 43 in t/modules/session.t at line 63 fail #9 >>> # Failed test 48 in t/modules/session.t at line 63 fail #10 >>> # Failed test 53 in t/modules/session.t at line 63 fail #11 *TODO* >>> # Failed test 54 in t/modules/session.t at line 65 fail #11 *TODO* >>> # Failed test 58 in t/modules/session.t at line 63 fail #12 >>> # Failed test 63 in t/modules/session.t at line 63 fail #13 >>> # Failed test 88 in t/modules/session.t at line 63 fail #18 *TODO* >>> # Failed test 89 in t/modules/session.t at line 65 fail #18 *TODO* >>> # Failed test 98 in t/modules/session.t at line 63 fail #20 >>> >>> (of course, I am ignoring the TODOs) >>> >>> Can anyone confirm? >>> >> I believe this is because of the patch committed for PR 57300 (r1709121), >> but the test changes that go with it (attached to the bug report) did not >> get committed. > > Yes my bad, I committed the code changes but got interrupted by > something else, and forgot to come back for committing the associated > tests. > > If I recall correctly, there are some changes from r1709121 that are > not taken into account by the tests. > I'll (re)take a look at the whole thing soon. > > Regards, > Yann.
