develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from September 2011

Re: Smoke [blead] v5.15.3-33-g0f8d4b5 FAIL(F) linux 2.6.38-11-generic[debian] (x86_64/8 cpu)

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Karl Williamson
September 24, 2011 15:34
Re: Smoke [blead] v5.15.3-33-g0f8d4b5 FAIL(F) linux 2.6.38-11-generic[debian] (x86_64/8 cpu)
Message ID:
On 09/23/2011 09:49 AM, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 10:27:55PM -0600, Karl Williamson wrote:
>> The reasons I'm uncertain if doing this is a problem, is why does this
>> only fail under minitest?  Why does regular test not care about this
>> extra output.  (minitest uses t/TEST).
> I think that the smokers are (only) using t/harness. It fails with "real"
> perl with t/TEST:
> $ ./perl harness re/regexp.t
> re/regexp.t .. ok
> All tests successful.
> Files=1, Tests=1541,  0 wallclock secs ( 0.41 usr  0.03 sys +  0.63 cusr  0.01 csys =  1.08 CPU)
> Result: PASS
> $ ./perl TEST re/regexp.t
> t/re/regexp ... FAILED--unexpected output at test 1539
> Failed 1 test out of 1, 0.00% okay.
>          re/regexp.t
> ### Since not all tests were successful, you may want to run some of
> ### them individually and examine any diagnostic messages they produce.
> ### See the INSTALL document's section on "make test".
> ### You may have to set your dynamic library search path,
> ### LD_LIBRARY_PATH, to point to the build directory:
> ###   setenv LD_LIBRARY_PATH `pwd`; cd t; ./perl harness
> ###   LD_LIBRARY_PATH=`pwd`; export LD_LIBRARY_PATH; cd t; ./perl harness
> ###   export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=`pwd`; cd t; ./perl harness
> ### for csh-style shells, like tcsh; or for traditional/modern
> ### Bourne-style shells, like bash, ksh, and zsh, respectively.
> u=0.12  s=0.02  cu=0.64  cs=0.01  scripts=1  tests=1541
> [and therefore will fail with make test, which I haven't tried as it is
> slow on a multicore machine]
> It's t/TEST vs t/harness, not "perl" vs "miniperl"
> Nicholas Clark

I do a 'make test_harness' for my local testing.  I'm having trouble 
grokking why harness would allow incorrect TAP output, and TEST 
wouldn't; nor is it documented AFAICT.  Is there a reason for this 
besides tuitlessness?  I would have thought the two things would try 
hard to have consistent pass/fail results; leaving only weird cases 
where they would differ.

Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About