[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 2.63b autotest vs. bison testsuite

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: 2.63b autotest vs. bison testsuite
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 20:29:47 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

Hi Eric,

* Eric Blake wrote on Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 02:13:43PM CEST:
> According to Eric Blake on 4/6/2009 11:14 AM:
> > probably need to teach more of autotest about automake's recent addition of 
> > status 99 meaning hardfail (not even XFAIL can exempt it from making the 
> > overall testsuite report failure), but that is why this patch below used 
> > at_status=99.
> As in the following.  Any objections to this patch?  In addition to adding
> hard failures, it documents and tests AT_CHECK_NOESCAPE, and also tests
> the ability to run post-AT_CHECK cleanup.

I'm wondering whether s/AT_CHECK_NOESCAPE/AT_CHECK_EXPAND/g would be
good.  Even with that, the name makes me think that the macro would do
something different with its first argument, rather than arguments
number three and four.  Unfortunately, I don't have a good suggestion
to improve this.

Cheers, and thanks,

> >From 05aa7f60a72577d4923b538c03f6a75d0cbf3e1b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Eric Blake <address@hidden>
> Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 06:02:42 -0600
> Subject: [PATCH] Teach AT_CHECK about hard failures.
> * lib/autotest/general.m4 (AT_INIT) <at_fn_check_skip>
> <at_fn_check_status, at_fn_group_postprocess>: Handle hard
> failures.
> * doc/autoconf.texi (Writing Testsuites) <AT_CHECK>: Document
> AT_CHECK_NOESCAPE and exit status 99.
> * NEWS: Likewise.
> * tests/ (Hard fail, Cleanup): New tests.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]