From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5941 invoked by alias); 22 Jan 2006 17:50:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 5933 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Jan 2006 17:50:10 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtpq3.groni1.gr.home.nl (HELO smtpq3.groni1.gr.home.nl) (213.51.130.202) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 22 Jan 2006 17:50:08 +0000 Received: from [213.51.130.190] (port=56414 helo=smtp1.groni1.gr.home.nl) by smtpq3.groni1.gr.home.nl with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1F0jLp-00028o-2f; Sun, 22 Jan 2006 18:50:05 +0100 Received: from cc977442-a.ensch1.ov.home.nl ([82.75.254.165]:37656 helo=gnu.wildebeest.org) by smtp1.groni1.gr.home.nl with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1F0jLd-0004yY-1l; Sun, 22 Jan 2006 18:49:53 +0100 Received: from ip56524d0d.adsl-surfen.hetnet.nl ([86.82.77.13] helo=CC977442-A.lan) by gnu.wildebeest.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1F0jM2-0000gW-00; Sun, 22 Jan 2006 18:50:18 +0100 Subject: Re: misleading output "PASS: Error: ..." From: Mark Wielaard To: Edwin Steiner Cc: mauve-discuss@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <20060120195947.GA8058@localhost.localdomain> References: <20060120195947.GA8058@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-DtW40obvHnmWCR39hYTe" Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 17:50:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1137858855.4418.4.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-AtHome-MailScanner-Information: Please contact support@home.nl for more information X-AtHome-MailScanner: Found to be clean 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: 2006-q1/txt/msg00016.txt.bz2 --=-DtW40obvHnmWCR39hYTe Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-length: 1080 Hi Edwin, On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 20:59 +0100, Edwin Steiner wrote: > During my work with tgolem I found many lines in the mauve output like > this: >=20 > PASS: gnu.testlet.java.lang.Byte.ByteTest: Error: test_Basics failed - 1 = (number 1) >=20 > They are produced by such code: >=20 > harness.check(!( Byte.MIN_VALUE !=3D -128 ), > "Error: test_Basics failed - 1" ); >=20 > Would you accept patches turning this into >=20 > harness.check(!( Byte.MIN_VALUE !=3D -128 ), > "test_Basics - 1" ); >=20 > ? (Only changing the string. Changing the double negation seems too > error prone for the many cases I found.) Yes please! I have found these message strings confusing myself in the past. If you do decide to change the double negation then please rewrite these as actual checks: harness.check(Byte.MIN_VALUE, -128, "test_Basics - 1" ); That way one sees the expected value if the the test would ever fail. But just changing the message strings would already be an improvement. Cheers, Mark --=-DtW40obvHnmWCR39hYTe 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 v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBD0lknxVhZCJWr9QwRAr4WAKCPLAful6CkmFZkcANzMVhNqUTnXACgsBJy Wv2ABxqi4kdxT9ay44F2rug= =HAIG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-DtW40obvHnmWCR39hYTe--