You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> on 2018/10/22 13:08:46 UTC
Test framework regressions - spelling and usertrack
These are new from a coupla day ago:
t/modules/speling.t ................. 1/48 # Failed test 11 in t/modules/speling.t at line 46 fail #6
# Failed test 12 in t/modules/speling.t at line 50 fail #5
# Failed test 35 in t/modules/speling.t at line 46 fail #18
# Failed test 36 in t/modules/speling.t at line 50 fail #9
t/modules/speling.t ................. Failed 4/48 subtests
(less 13 skipped subtests: 31 okay)
t/modules/usertrack.t ............... 714/1001 Argument "135/256" isn't numeric in numeric eq (==) at t/modules/usertrack.t line 62.
t/modules/usertrack.t ............... Dubious, test returned 255 (wstat 65280, 0xff00)
Failed 1/1001 subtests
Re: Test framework regressions - spelling and usertrack
Posted by Marion & Christophe JAILLET <ch...@wanadoo.fr>.
Le 22/10/2018 à 16:16, Rainer Jung a écrit :
> Am 22.10.2018 um 15:45 schrieb Yann Ylavic:
>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 3:28 PM Yann Ylavic <yl...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 3:09 PM Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> These are new from a coupla day ago:
>>>
>>> Both tests were added a few days ago, so probably not a regression
>>> (test issues likely).
>>
>> FWIW, both pass on my Linux system.
>
> Not here on Solaris. I think new r1844562 is the correct fix for
> usertrack.t.
>
> New speling.t and session_cookie.t work here.
>
> regards,
>
> Rainer
>
>
Thx for fixing this "Perl syntax" issue.
This is strange because it worked fine as-is for me (Ubuntu)
CJ
Re: Test framework regressions - spelling and usertrack
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
Am 22.10.2018 um 15:45 schrieb Yann Ylavic:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 3:28 PM Yann Ylavic <yl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 3:09 PM Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> These are new from a coupla day ago:
>>
>> Both tests were added a few days ago, so probably not a regression
>> (test issues likely).
>
> FWIW, both pass on my Linux system.
Not here on Solaris. I think new r1844562 is the correct fix for
usertrack.t.
New speling.t and session_cookie.t work here.
regards,
Rainer
Re: Test framework regressions - spelling and usertrack
Posted by Yann Ylavic <yl...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 3:28 PM Yann Ylavic <yl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 3:09 PM Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> >
> > These are new from a coupla day ago:
>
> Both tests were added a few days ago, so probably not a regression
> (test issues likely).
FWIW, both pass on my Linux system.
Re: Test framework regressions - spelling and usertrack
Posted by Yann Ylavic <yl...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 3:09 PM Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> These are new from a coupla day ago:
Both tests were added a few days ago, so probably not a regression
(test issues likely).
Re: Test framework regressions - spelling and usertrack
Posted by Marion & Christophe JAILLET <ch...@wanadoo.fr>.
Le 22/10/2018 à 16:56, Jim Jagielski a écrit :
> The latest update to usertrack works. Thx! speling still bad:
>
> On httpd-2.4 HEAD:
>
> t/modules/speling.t ................. 1/48 # Failed test 11 in t/modules/speling.t at line 46 fail #6
> # Failed test 12 in t/modules/speling.t at line 50 fail #5
> # Failed test 35 in t/modules/speling.t at line 46 fail #18
> # Failed test 36 in t/modules/speling.t at line 50 fail #9
> t/modules/speling.t ................. Failed 4/48 subtests
> (less 13 skipped subtests: 31 okay)
>
> On trunk:
>
> t/modules/speling.t ................. 1/48 # Failed test 11 in t/modules/speling.t at line 46 fail #6
> # Failed test 12 in t/modules/speling.t at line 50 fail #5
> # Failed test 13 in t/modules/speling.t at line 46 fail #7
> # Failed test 14 in t/modules/speling.t at line 50 fail #6
> # Failed test 15 in t/modules/speling.t at line 46 fail #8
> # Failed test 16 in t/modules/speling.t at line 50 fail #7
> # Failed test 35 in t/modules/speling.t at line 46 fail #18
> # Failed test 36 in t/modules/speling.t at line 50 fail #9
> # Failed test 37 in t/modules/speling.t at line 46 fail #19
> # Failed test 38 in t/modules/speling.t at line 50 fail #10
> # Failed test 39 in t/modules/speling.t at line 46 fail #20
> # Failed test 40 in t/modules/speling.t at line 50 fail #11
> t/modules/speling.t ................. Failed 12/48 subtests
> (less 13 skipped subtests: 23 okay)
I've not tested on trunk :(.
It is expected to give some different result because of r1557580 which
has changed the default behavior.
I plan to restore the previous behavior (just need to change the default
value of 'check_basename_match', I think) and then propose for backport.
Consider this ~5 years few lines patch still a WIP...
(apologies for neither finishing, nor reverting the changes)
> This is on macOS. The speling tests show:
>
> # testing : Checking case. Expecting: 301
> # expected: 301
> # received: '200'
> not ok 11
> # testing : Redirect ok
> # expected: qr/good\.html|several1\.html/
> # received: '<html></html
> # '
> not ok 12
If the system is not case-sensitive, it is likely that this test must be
tweaked.
> # Failed test 11 in t/modules/speling.t at line 46 fail #6
> # Failed test 12 in t/modules/speling.t at line 50 fail #5
> # testing : Checking wrong extension. Expecting: 300
> # expected: 300
> # received: '404'
> not ok 13
This is the expected change of behavior.
CJ
Re: Test framework regressions - spelling and usertrack
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Well, we'll see if other macOS users also have the same failures... that will determine if my hypothesis is correct.
> On Oct 22, 2018, at 11:37 AM, Stefan Eissing <st...@greenbytes.de> wrote:
>
> dAMn! uSABilitY StRiks aGAIn!
>
>> Am 22.10.2018 um 17:34 schrieb Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>:
>>
>> OK, I think I know what may be happening; I am guessing its due to the macOS file system being case insensitive but case preserving...
>
Re: Test framework regressions - spelling and usertrack
Posted by Stefan Eissing <st...@greenbytes.de>.
dAMn! uSABilitY StRiks aGAIn!
> Am 22.10.2018 um 17:34 schrieb Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>:
>
> OK, I think I know what may be happening; I am guessing its due to the macOS file system being case insensitive but case preserving...
Re: Test framework regressions - spelling and usertrack
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
OK, I think I know what may be happening; I am guessing its due to the macOS file system being case insensitive but case preserving...
Re: Test framework regressions - spelling and usertrack
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
The latest update to usertrack works. Thx! speling still bad:
On httpd-2.4 HEAD:
t/modules/speling.t ................. 1/48 # Failed test 11 in t/modules/speling.t at line 46 fail #6
# Failed test 12 in t/modules/speling.t at line 50 fail #5
# Failed test 35 in t/modules/speling.t at line 46 fail #18
# Failed test 36 in t/modules/speling.t at line 50 fail #9
t/modules/speling.t ................. Failed 4/48 subtests
(less 13 skipped subtests: 31 okay)
On trunk:
t/modules/speling.t ................. 1/48 # Failed test 11 in t/modules/speling.t at line 46 fail #6
# Failed test 12 in t/modules/speling.t at line 50 fail #5
# Failed test 13 in t/modules/speling.t at line 46 fail #7
# Failed test 14 in t/modules/speling.t at line 50 fail #6
# Failed test 15 in t/modules/speling.t at line 46 fail #8
# Failed test 16 in t/modules/speling.t at line 50 fail #7
# Failed test 35 in t/modules/speling.t at line 46 fail #18
# Failed test 36 in t/modules/speling.t at line 50 fail #9
# Failed test 37 in t/modules/speling.t at line 46 fail #19
# Failed test 38 in t/modules/speling.t at line 50 fail #10
# Failed test 39 in t/modules/speling.t at line 46 fail #20
# Failed test 40 in t/modules/speling.t at line 50 fail #11
t/modules/speling.t ................. Failed 12/48 subtests
(less 13 skipped subtests: 23 okay)
This is on macOS. The speling tests show:
# testing : Checking case. Expecting: 301
# expected: 301
# received: '200'
not ok 11
# testing : Redirect ok
# expected: qr/good\.html|several1\.html/
# received: '<html></html
# '
not ok 12
# Failed test 11 in t/modules/speling.t at line 46 fail #6
# Failed test 12 in t/modules/speling.t at line 50 fail #5
# testing : Checking wrong extension. Expecting: 300
# expected: 300
# received: '404'
not ok 13
# testing : Redirect ok
# expected: qr/good\.html|several1\.html/
# received: '<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN">
# <html><head>
# <title>404 Not Found</title>
# </head><body>
# <h1>Not Found</h1>
# <p>The requested URL /modules/speling/nocase/good.wrong_ext was not found on this server.</p>
# </body></html>
# '
not ok 14
# Failed test 13 in t/modules/speling.t at line 46 fail #7
# Failed test 14 in t/modules/speling.t at line 50 fail #6
# testing : Checking NC wrong extension. Expecting: 300
# expected: 300
# received: '404'
not ok 15
# testing : Redirect ok
# expected: qr/good\.html|several1\.html/
# received: '<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN">
# <html><head>
# <title>404 Not Found</title>
# </head><body>
# <h1>Not Found</h1>
# <p>The requested URL /modules/speling/nocase/GOOD.wrong_ext was not found on this server.</p>
# </body></html>
# '