Ok, clarification its not the binding of values. Its the annotation
added by the #{ : } form which doesn't work if the unit tests are
compiled ahead of time. I'm guessing that is because in that case the
syntax obects go through zo-serialization and thus lose the property.On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Eric Dobson <eric.n.dob...@gmail.com> wrote: > +dev in case others have likely insights. > > Recap: > TR's with contracts unit test is failing. I have diagonsed the issue > to the bindings in the test case are not the same as expected, and > syntax parse doesn't match them. I have made a reasonably minimal test > case, and figure out that the line that is causing it is > "(use-compiled-filepaths null)". I believe that this shouldn't cause > semantic changes, so I'm wondering if any one can give any insight as > to why this could cause problems. > > Reduced test case (Checkout the branch): > https://github.com/shekari/racket/tree/namespace-issues > Run: racket -l tests/typed-racket/with-tr-contracts > > Code that is not matching the binding: > https://github.com/shekari/racket/blob/namespace-issues/pkgs/typed-racket-pkgs/typed-racket-lib/typed-racket/typecheck/tc-app/tc-app-values.rkt#L45 > > Actual rackunit test case: > https://github.com/shekari/racket/blob/namespace-issues/pkgs/typed-racket-pkgs/typed-racket-test/tests/typed-racket/unit-tests/typecheck-tests.rkt#L481 > > On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Eric Dobson <eric.n.dob...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Confirmed that this is not about contracts, it is about the >> namespacing that is being done. >> >> Some how the `values` that is in the test case doesn't have the right >> binding when done throught with-tr-contracts. This causes us to use >> the regular app typechecking instead of the one specialized for values >> which is why the result changes. I'm actually suprised that no other >> tests fail. >> >> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Eric Dobson <eric.n.dob...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I'm not able to replicate this on my local machine, nor does it make >>> sense for one unit test to fail because of a bad value is returned >>> because contracts are turned on. Any insight into what could be >>> causing this? >>> >>> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 9:07 AM, <d...@racket-lang.org> wrote: >>>> DrDr has finished building push #28812 after 3.40h. >>>> >>>> http://drdr.racket-lang.org/28812/ >>>> >>>> A file you are responsible for has a condition that may need inspecting. >>>> stderr: >>>> >>>> http://drdr.racket-lang.org/28812/pkgs/typed-racket-pkgs/typed-racket-test/tests/typed-racket/with-tr-contracts.rkt >>>> >>>> _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
