The tests can only be performed using the cgi/cli sapis since they require a
command line PHP binary. So, this is a non-issue. If we must display error
messages then I would prefer using display_errors=1 instead of log_errors=1.
Ilia
I'm working with another person on a web version of the t
At 10:14 10/29/2002 -0500, Ilia A. wrote:
Adding @ to block the errors is not a good approach imho, the warning should
be displayed and accounted for in the expected output.
If your testing foo_function, it's useless when bar_function() is
generating verbose
warnings, so that the foo_function
At 16:14 29.10.2002, Ilia A. wrote:
On October 29, 2002 09:52 am, Marcus Boerger wrote:
> I think we need to discuss the behaviour of run-tests.php
> according too error/warning handling a bit.
>
> First question (let me know if i am wrong): Any error/warning/
> notice in a test result is either e
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Ilia A. wrote:
> On October 29, 2002 09:52 am, Marcus Boerger wrote:
>
> > Remark 2: We could instead use the log_errors and direct them to the output
> > with the following changes to above settings:
> > display_errors=0
> > log_errors=1
> >
> > The output would be nicer but
On October 29, 2002 09:52 am, Marcus Boerger wrote:
> I think we need to discuss the behaviour of run-tests.php
> according too error/warning handling a bit.
>
> First question (let me know if i am wrong): Any error/warning/
> notice in a test result is either expected or a real error.
Agreed, how
I think we need to discuss the behaviour of run-tests.php
according too error/warning handling a bit.
First question (let me know if i am wrong): Any error/warning/
notice in a test result is either expected or a real error.
To make that clear: Yes some tests failed after i made those
visible but
