You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to c-dev@xerces.apache.org by rl...@codelibre.net on 2017/07/03 13:27:43 UTC
Re: Upporting status
On 2017-06-29 20:25, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On 29/06/17 20:17, Cantor, Scott wrote:
>> On 6/29/17, 3:02 PM, "Roger Leigh" <rl...@codelibre.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The recent trunk changes broke a few of the unit tests.
>>
>> I don't understand how, other than the ones that are for some reason
>> depending on the output of the parameter options for the DOMCount
>> sample. That seems like an odd test, but it certainly would have
>> broken.
>>
>> Since nothing should be actually invoking the sample with the new
>> option, I don't know why a new error would be raised in the tests, it
>> defaults to behaving the same as before, allowing DTDs.
>>
>>> Do you need a hand looking at fixing any of these bits?
>>
>> I don't know any of the tests or even how to run them, so probably.
>>
>> If the tests can be run locally with an autotools build, I haven't
>> found that trick yet.
>
> It's "scripts/sanityTest.pl", a Perl script which runs all the tests,
> concatenates their output, and then diffs it with the expected output.
> It fails if the output differs or the tests fail prematurely.
You might find https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XERCESC-2104 of
interest. This replaces sanityTest.pl with separate automake checks.
You can still run "make check", but it now shows you each individual
test being run and stores the logs in separate files. This makes it
much clearer what's breaking.
You can see this working in
https://travis-ci.org/rleigh-codelibre/xerces-c/builds/249590170 #1 #5
and #7.
Regards,
Roger
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: c-dev-unsubscribe@xerces.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: c-dev-help@xerces.apache.org
RE: Upporting status
Posted by rl...@codelibre.net.
On 2017-07-03 14:32, Cantor, Scott wrote:
>> You might find https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XERCESC-2104 of
>> interest. This replaces sanityTest.pl with separate automake checks.
>> You can still run "make check", but it now shows you each individual
>> test being run and stores the logs in separate files. This makes it
>> much clearer what's breaking.
>
> I don't know what XFAIL means but the tests all pass for me on Windows
> and Linux at the moment.
XFAIL is "expected fail". Some of the tests expect a nonzero exit
status; mainly just tests which display usage information when run with
no options. It's treated the same as PASS in that it's not counted as
an error. If they ever pass unexpectedly then you'll get an XPASS which
is treated as an error. These are XFAIL_TESTS in Makefile.am, and
EXPECT_FAIL in CMakeLists.txt.
Regards,
Roger
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: c-dev-unsubscribe@xerces.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: c-dev-help@xerces.apache.org
RE: Upporting status
Posted by "Cantor, Scott" <ca...@osu.edu>.
> You might find https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XERCESC-2104 of
> interest. This replaces sanityTest.pl with separate automake checks.
> You can still run "make check", but it now shows you each individual
> test being run and stores the logs in separate files. This makes it
> much clearer what's breaking.
I don't know what XFAIL means but the tests all pass for me on Windows and Linux at the moment.
-- Scott
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: c-dev-unsubscribe@xerces.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: c-dev-help@xerces.apache.org
RE: Upporting status
Posted by rl...@codelibre.net.
On 2017-07-03 14:55, Cantor, Scott wrote:
> Roger, is that separate fork updated with the master copy? It looks
> like maybe it's missing the bug fixes I checked in Friday after you
> let me know they were failing. That would certainly explain it.
>
> The link issue was just a dangling reference to 3_1 in the ICU build
> from the version change, which I probably should see if we can get
> indirected into a macro.
>
> I'm not familiar with Travis yet but I interpreted the output here [1]
> as successful (the #9 link).
Yes, thanks. After that fix went in, everything passed across the
board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: c-dev-unsubscribe@xerces.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: c-dev-help@xerces.apache.org
RE: Upporting status
Posted by "Cantor, Scott" <ca...@osu.edu>.
Roger, is that separate fork updated with the master copy? It looks like maybe it's missing the bug fixes I checked in Friday after you let me know they were failing. That would certainly explain it.
The link issue was just a dangling reference to 3_1 in the ICU build from the version change, which I probably should see if we can get indirected into a macro.
I'm not familiar with Travis yet but I interpreted the output here [1] as successful (the #9 link).
-- Scott
[1] https://travis-ci.org/apache/xerces-c/builds
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: c-dev-unsubscribe@xerces.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: c-dev-help@xerces.apache.org