Le 14/05/2016 07:39, Richard Frith-Macdonald a écrit : >> On 10 May 2016, at 23:29, Stefan Bidigaray <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I feel like I'm having deja vu. We spoke about this a few months back. The >> issue is that the ICU's "display" functions are not guaranteed to have a >> stable output. Makes sense, because languages and conventions change over >> time. >> >> This issue is unrelated to this problem. Without looking at the code and >> going only off memory, the issue has to do with the fact that we're testing >> for a particular behavior, but ICU changed since the test was written. It's >> tough writing tests for ICU, because there are no guarantees anywhere. The >> only guarantee is that a human being will be able to interpret it. The ICU >> output changed some time around version 4.4 or 48. >> >> Still, these shouldn't be a "hopeful" just because the tests should always >> pass, a (nil), for example, is not acceptable. > I think we have actually only seen two different formats from the ICU library. > So I took the simple option to allow both; > > > /* Different versions of ICU use different formats, so we need to > * permit alternative results. > */ > str = [fmt stringFromNumber: num]; > PASS([str isEqual: @"(R$1.235)"] || [str isEqual: @"_R$1.235"], > "negativeFormat used for -ve number"); > I will apply this patch in debian. Thanks
_______________________________________________ Discuss-gnustep mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
