From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.223.131]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 493F43857007 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 08:55:56 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 493F43857007 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.de Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.de ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 493F43857007 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=195.135.223.131 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1707900958; cv=none; b=TlE71htVCip4GovxmqtKrVy0blgfhLRfqsZqsl8y5K5rSyfk6WBmWELXZ7XfggYIXAXB2jB0cLPpqMBdIAhP0EBlqniBhUT80S16O+a0eGuLQqpKMDopr7F47bhgKaidp47Zqfk2Wo3fpPntNWsBOxaUshzoPg9tEoagAdOnZCw= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1707900958; c=relaxed/simple; bh=37T7GlMEI3fSbgyyjbzFaA2PFnfUGIKFwJujMnen+9o=; h=DKIM-Signature:DKIM-Signature:DKIM-Signature:DKIM-Signature: Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From; b=VBtrCyoMSnKgD1nXD9eXLUSx0dAZr2b6hV5wUVHBGrzZXIURLyJGxN0Jsooqtc+0L6YpReKlsWP7N8sRcQ+NAzoMF9RzHulcFhrnM6fgMCv7sv8oSYCZ1Xvv8P7WVW/FF/Bvs2SLXPDytmhKAPdUCHj56GwVnUHGXag/6H13O0k= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org [10.150.64.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 123611FD58; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 08:55:55 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1707900955; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=YALL41RhA09gRIPxenx3zLYhVX+f7jIru4H+wFIcxSs=; b=Enq6ns4yATX5cmyYBWJAf6isIGMkMBi08VZW/1kpAxUJBepdntYgc3x3RLlcw7buv5+Spv KtpvbY2Y8xtG/WpBfmZizmw4yeVH0CFlXDri6tS5CDUUJweB6rjL6xGF4BC8dHmORned/o Jl80SKnVEAd4lBDisjOcbhs4XBBElsU= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1707900955; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=YALL41RhA09gRIPxenx3zLYhVX+f7jIru4H+wFIcxSs=; b=5EcLNIFDAFGD5Q6si/RIUpnmW7/HdmJoBuWSAu6d/IM0EcNrpBBDXWF3NuVFVqlh2gI9bh c3IOZcF14tnPIiAQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1707900955; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=YALL41RhA09gRIPxenx3zLYhVX+f7jIru4H+wFIcxSs=; b=Enq6ns4yATX5cmyYBWJAf6isIGMkMBi08VZW/1kpAxUJBepdntYgc3x3RLlcw7buv5+Spv KtpvbY2Y8xtG/WpBfmZizmw4yeVH0CFlXDri6tS5CDUUJweB6rjL6xGF4BC8dHmORned/o Jl80SKnVEAd4lBDisjOcbhs4XBBElsU= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1707900955; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=YALL41RhA09gRIPxenx3zLYhVX+f7jIru4H+wFIcxSs=; b=5EcLNIFDAFGD5Q6si/RIUpnmW7/HdmJoBuWSAu6d/IM0EcNrpBBDXWF3NuVFVqlh2gI9bh c3IOZcF14tnPIiAQ== Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED48013A6D; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 08:55:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id fW12OBqAzGX1MQAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Wed, 14 Feb 2024 08:55:54 +0000 Message-ID: <72dd6f2d-1012-4411-887a-2449b7138d2a@suse.de> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 09:56:09 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] [gdb/testsuite] Fix another fail and tcl error in gdb.dap/sources.exp Content-Language: en-US To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20240213161823.25945-1-tdevries@suse.de> <87eddg5j9u.fsf@tromey.com> From: Tom de Vries In-Reply-To: <87eddg5j9u.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Authentication-Results: smtp-out2.suse.de; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.09 / 50.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; XM_UA_NO_VERSION(0.01)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[100.00%]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.de:s=susede2_rsa,suse.de:s=susede2_ed25519]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; DBL_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[suse.de:email]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[] X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Score: -3.09 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On 2/13/24 19:08, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Tom" == Tom de Vries writes: > > Tom> These are the same type of tcl error and FAIL I just fixed for a later > Tom> request in the same test-case. > > Tom> Fix this by: > Tom> - moving the wait-for-stop to before the loadedSources request to fix the > Tom> FAIL, and > Tom> - checking for $obj == "" to fix the tcl error. > > This is fine as long as these tests are actually being run in the end. > What I mean is, it would be bad to cover up a real failure of some kind. > Hi Tom, thanks for the review. Agreed, that would be bad, but I don't think this is the case. The only thing that's happening here is that the test-case is cut short as soon as one test FAILs. There's always a FAIL to signal that something went wrong. The dap_check_request_and_response proc itself produces a FAIL, which is why it isn't obvious from looking at the test-case that a FAIL is produced. [ I'm on the fence about this. Having the proc itself produce the fail guarantees a FAIL without effort from the call, but make you wonder when looking at the call whether something is missing. Conversely, having to check the result of the call and produce a FAIL means it can be forgotten. ] I know there's some high level goal to produce the same amount of PASS/FAIL, but IMO that's to be applied if that's easy, if it makes the test-case convoluted then it's not worth the trouble. Committed. Thanks, - Tom > Approved-By: Tom Tromey > > Tom