On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Martin Mrazik wrote: > I was playing with the testsuite (latest testsuite-snapshot with exim-4.62) a > bit and found a few issues. Attached is a proposed patch to solve most of > them.
Hello Martin, Thank you for playing with the testsuite. Only a few other people have done so as yet, so it is nice to get more feedback. Especially when it comes with patches! In a week or two I'll be thinking about pulling together a 4.63 release, and at that time I'll be making sure the test suite is up-to-date. When I do so, I'll deal with the issues you raise. > Also I think it would be nice to have an option (-NOINTERACTIVE ?) to run the > tests in non-interactive mode. My idea is to run the testsuite and at the > end just collect some statistical data and logs. What do you think about > this? I'm willing to implement it. Yes, that is something I have thought about, but have never had the time to do anything about it. Thanks for the offer. > vii) From time to time some tests are failing due to bin/server timeout. I > would consider raising the default timeout to 10s (not included in the patch) > > Sometimes test 0461 is failing too and I'm suspecting timeouts in confs. Yes, I see this too. It is very difficult to test things that depend on timing in a system where other programs are running at the same time. > viii) Output formatting problems. > My ls(1) is using different time/date format than expected and thus # 0345 is > failing. I would consider making a file like KNOWN_ISSUES - list of tests > likely to fail due to formatting and/or other errors. Good idea. > I have some troubles with 0476 and 0529 as well: > > Line 73 of "test-stderr-munged" does not match lines 73-74 of "stderr/0529". > ---------- > now=1152723074 received_time=1152636673 diff=86401 timeout=259200 > ---------- > now=tttt first_failed=tttt next_try=tttt expired=0 > received_time=tttt diff=tttt timeout=259200 > =============== > 1 difference found. > > Any idea what might be wrong? For me it seems this is just a different output > formatting. This is something that has been changed for 4.63. The problem is that you have used the snapshot test suite with 4.62. I think you will find that this will work if you use the snapshot test suite with the snapshot Exim, or the 4.62 test suite with 4.62. > ix) > I was not able to find out why tests 0291 and 0104 are failing. In both cases > the testsuite is expecting the [duplicate, would not be delivered] string but > apparently my exim is not printing this. Any clue? > ---------- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ---------- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] [duplicate, would not be delivered] Same as above. Philip -- Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service Get the Exim 4 book: http://www.uit.co.uk/exim-book -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
