On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Phil Pennock <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2012-03-30 at 06:51 -0700, Todd Lyons wrote: >> But then I get slight errors on each test. This is typical output: >> >> 220 the.local.host.name ESMTP Exim 4.77_1102-226c389 Tue, 2 Mar 1999 >> 09:44:33 +0000 >> ---------- >> 220 the.local.host.name ESMTP Exim x.yz Tue, 2 Mar 1999 09:44:33 +0000 > > So the version number should have been changed in the tested binary by > patchexim. > > Looks as though the last changes were by me in October when I found that > the new version numbers generated by the build system were not handled > by the test suite, so I fixed the tests to run as part of the release > process. > > Further, it looks like I missed some other output formats. > runtest normalises output. Looks like the regexp isn't matching that > version string. The underscore is the problem. > > I've fixed patchexim to handle this variant too.
Are there more places with underscores that need to be touched? It still fails on what looks like what should be something replaced: Basic/0001 Basic configuration setting ===============f test-stdout-munged with stdout/0001 failed >From line 22 of "test-stdout-munged" and line 22 of "stdout/0001" the files are different. ---------- warn_message_file = CALLER_HOME/test/warnmsg_file ---------- warn_message_file = /home/exim/test/warnmsg_file =============== 1 difference found. "test-stdout-munged" contains 22 lines; "stdout/0001" contains 22 lines. Thanks for the answers Phil. :-) ...Todd -- Always code as if the guy who ends up maintaining your code will be a violent psychopath who knows where you live. -- Martin Golding -- ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
