Pierre Neidhardt <m...@ambrevar.xyz> writes: > David Bremner <da...@tethera.net> writes: > >>> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- >>>> guix environment notmuch -- >>>> /home/ambrevar/.local/share/emacs/site-lisp/notmuch/test/T460-emacs-tree.sh >>> guix environment: error: execlp: No such file or directory: >>> "/home/ambrevar/.local/share/emacs/site-lisp/notmuch/test/T460-emacs-tree.sh" >>> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- >> >> I can't really help you with Guix, but I suggest setting up some >> environment where you can run things in an interactive shell. >> >> In particular that error seems to be claiming the test file doesn't >> exist, which would be easy to debug in an interactive shell. > > Yup, that's what I did with "guix environment notmuch": it sets up a > build environment (and an interactive shell) for notmuch. And I really > wonder why it can't find the file, it's there in the interactive shell. > It's possible that the error message is a red herring though, I'll look > into it.
I case it helps, attached is the output from % cd test && ./T460-emacs-tree.sh Note that the tests do need to be run from that directory. The two new tests that actually use emacs are failing with output: *ERROR*: Wrong number of arguments: (1 . 1), 0 Running the tests interactively (just eval testl-lib.el first) suggests that is output from set-mark-command (in emacs 26.1, it demands at least one argument).
Description: Binary data
> > So would you like me to patch the namespacing along with these changes > or leave it for another patch? I'd leave namespacing of existing code for a new series if you're motivated to work on that. For your new code, I think it makes most sense to have it in the patch that introduces the code. > >> I assume you are not using git-send-email because it's difficult for >> you; it's not that a big of a deal, although we do prefer series >> generated git-send-email for reviewing. > > I'm using git-send-email on a regular basis, no problem with that. (I > wonder why you would think it's difficult for me :p) My mistake, I assume everyone read https://notmuchmail.org/contributing/#index11h2 ;). > git-send-email comes with different workflows though, I'm not sure which > one Notmuch follows. Do you prefer versioned patch series > (e.g. [PATCHv2], etc.) or patch updates sent with > "--in-reply-to=<message-id-of-the-last-email>"? For series, probably the former. For single patches, or updates to the single patches in the series, the latter. Thanks! d
_______________________________________________ notmuch mailing list email@example.com https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch