From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23419 invoked by alias); 24 Nov 2005 21:50:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 23412 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Nov 2005 21:50:16 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from wildebeest.demon.nl (HELO gnu.wildebeest.org) (83.160.152.237) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:50:14 +0000 Received: from elsschot.wildebeest.org ([192.168.1.26]) by gnu.wildebeest.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1EfOyp-0006AK-00; Thu, 24 Nov 2005 22:50:11 +0100 Subject: Re: inconsistent test names From: Mark Wielaard To: Edwin Steiner Cc: mauve-discuss@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <20051118190804.GA10989@localhost.localdomain> References: <20051118190804.GA10989@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-7sjKy1FMV4ezzi4c0QwC" Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:50:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1132869012.5568.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact mauve-discuss-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: mauve-discuss-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2005-q4/txt/msg00037.txt.bz2 --=-7sjKy1FMV4ezzi4c0QwC Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-length: 955 Hi Edwin, On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 20:08 +0100, Edwin Steiner wrote: > Currently I'm developing an automated testing framework for > cacao[2]. You can see preliminary results here (large page!): >=20 > http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/cacaojvm//tgolem/2005-11-18T03-22/mauve.= html Very nice overview! > One problem I've run accross is that some mauve tests use > inconsistent names to report PASSes and FAILs. The most troublesome > cases are those, where a *named* check/fail is followed by an > *unnamed* one. > [...] > If you also think these cases should be fixed (by naming the checks), > I would be happy to provide patches. Makes more sense than teaching > my tgolem to work around these cases. That does make sense to me. Probably the best approach would be to have an explicit harness.checkPoint("") after each named check followed by unnamed ones. But I would be happy with any patch that solves this issue. Cheers, Mark --=-7sjKy1FMV4ezzi4c0QwC Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-length: 189 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBDhjWTxVhZCJWr9QwRArzCAKCn1MmCTXmSTonW5ETUj8IFmc5u2QCfQS3H K6JBJNtCHSUiK9f8AfisWqg= =4xiM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-7sjKy1FMV4ezzi4c0QwC--