On 3/18/18 1:01 AM, don fong wrote:
> will the coverage target be in an upcoming release?
Sure. It's in the devel branch now.
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRUc...@case.eduhttp:
will the coverage target be in an upcoming release?
On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 7:13 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 3/17/18 6:39 PM, don fong wrote:
> > Chet, thanks for the tip about where to find the tests for subst.c . i
> > still think that my tests cover some cases that aren't covered by
> > posix
On 3/17/18 6:39 PM, don fong wrote:
> Chet, thanks for the tip about where to find the tests for subst.c . i
> still think that my tests cover some cases that aren't covered by
> posixexp.tests .
There are other test cases.
> it's cool that you increased the coverage of subst.c . how did you pr
Chet, thanks for the tip about where to find the tests for subst.c . i
still think that my tests cover some cases that aren't covered by
posixexp.tests .
it's cool that you increased the coverage of subst.c . how did you produce
the report? i didn't see a script or makefile target to do it.
On 3/9/18 3:14 AM, don fong wrote:
>
> my question was whether you have tests for the variable modifiers.
> i don't see any. that's the area of code i was touching, and that's why i
> wrote a few tests of that area.
Thank you for the inspiration. I ran the devel version of the test suite
throu
On 3/9/18 3:14 AM, don fong wrote:
>
>
> If you'd like to augment the test suite where you feel it lacks something,
> please feel free to do so.
>
>
> tests were included in my patch. you deleted them. i think they should
> be added in.
I understand you're pretty chapped about that.
> If you'd like to augment the test suite where you feel it lacks something,
> please feel free to do so.
tests were included in my patch. you deleted them. i think they should
be added in.
> are there any tests that cover the variable modifiers, either unit tests
> or
> > functional tests?
>
On 3/7/18 1:00 PM, don fong wrote:
> Chet Ramey wrote:
>> What are the most important features that you consider to lack unit tests?
>
> are there any tests that cover the variable modifiers, either unit tests or
> functional tests?
Yes. The test framework and tests are available for you to see.
Chet Ramey wrote:
> What are the most important features that you consider to lack unit tests?
are there any tests that cover the variable modifiers, either unit tests or
functional tests?
is any of subst.c covered by unit tests?
how do unit tests get run on this project? i don't see a unit tes
On 3/2/18 4:45 PM, don fong wrote:
> Chet, thanks for the explanation about CHANGES. i am not familiar with the
> bash release process.
>
> as for this:
>
>> I didn't think the tests were necessary.
>
> what standard are you using to judge whether tests are necessary? does the
> bash project
Chet, thanks for the explanation about CHANGES. i am not familiar with the
bash release process.
as for this:
> I didn't think the tests were necessary.
what standard are you using to judge whether tests are necessary? does the
bash project have any coverage metrics?
on general principles, wh
On 3/1/18 11:37 PM, don fong wrote:
> Chet, thanks. in subst.c there is code that looks similar to what i had
> suggested. but i don't see the tests that i submitted. i also don't see
> the change listed in CHANGES?
I didn't think the tests were necessary. And the ChangeLog file is the
one to l
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 12:37 PM, don fong wrote:
> Chet, thanks. in subst.c there is code that looks similar to what i had
> suggested. but i don't see the tests that i submitted. i also don't see
> the change listed in CHANGES?
>
It's in the file CWRU/CWRU.chlog:
Chet, thanks. in subst.c there is code that looks similar to what i had
suggested. but i don't see the tests that i submitted. i also don't see
the change listed in CHANGES?
On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 11:09 AM, Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 3/1/18 12:24 PM, don fong wrote:
> > any feedback on this
On 3/1/18 12:24 PM, don fong wrote:
> any feedback on this patch?
Check the current devel git branch.
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRUc...@case.eduhttp://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/
any feedback on this patch?
On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 11:24 AM, Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 2/23/18 10:20 PM, don fong wrote:
> > hi folks. i'm a bash user, who just noticed a slight anomaly. it has
> > to with the shell variable modifier ${parameter?} . according to the
> > man page, ${X?} should y
On 2/23/18 10:20 PM, don fong wrote:
> hi folks. i'm a bash user, who just noticed a slight anomaly. it has
> to with the shell variable modifier ${parameter?} . according to the
> man page, ${X?} should yield an error message and exit if X is unset,
> otherwise the value of X. in this case,
>
Clark, thanks for your response. i'm attaching my patch.
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 7:32 PM, Clark Wang wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 11:20 AM, don fong wrote:
>>
>>
>> i would like to submit this change for inclusion in bash. how should i
>> proceed?
>
>
> It's very common to send patches di
On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 11:20 AM, don fong wrote:
>
> i would like to submit this change for inclusion in bash. how should i
> proceed?
>
It's very common to send patches directly to this mailing list. I believe
it's also OK to send only to Chet. :)
19 matches
Mail list logo
