From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14835 invoked by alias); 2 May 2004 12:27:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact mauve-discuss-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: mauve-discuss-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 14813 invoked from network); 2 May 2004 12:27:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com) (81.96.64.123) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 May 2004 12:27:16 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i42CQ9IP000436; Sun, 2 May 2004 13:26:19 +0100 Received: (from aph@localhost) by redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i42CQ821000432; Sun, 2 May 2004 13:26:08 +0100 From: Andrew Haley MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <16532.59616.488848.916160@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com> Date: Sun, 02 May 2004 12:27:00 -0000 To: Thomas Zander Cc: mauve-discuss@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Some issues.. In-Reply-To: <200405011148.16628.zander@javalobby.org> References: <788B535AB1F9CB49BB9C229372B50ACC0ADEA3@LEMBU.sumatrasoftware.com> <200404291517.22903.zander@javalobby.org> <16529.7946.481687.868491@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com> <200405011148.16628.zander@javalobby.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-q2/txt/msg00062.txt.bz2 Thomas Zander writes: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Thursday 29 April 2004 17:28, Andrew Haley wrote: > > Thomas writes: > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > > On Thursday 29 April 2004 13:39, Andrew Haley wrote: > > > > I don't see the problem, really.  If it doesn't run on some system, > > > > what is lost?  All that happens is a few test failures. > > > > > > For most test environments I make the whole build fail as soon as a > > > test fails; this is implemented in the ant-based mauve test as well. > > > The reason for this is simple; if a test fails its a regression bug; > > > you can't commit changes while you have a regression bug. > > > > Okay, but if you're going to insist on this you need a way to mark > > known/expected failures: does any VM pass everything? So, why not > > mark this whole thing as "known to fail" on Windows and move on? > > There are 3 approaches to this; I'd suggest the first for ease of use.. > 1) check in the test (or even in the test-framework) if a system setting is > present. > If(System.getProperty("os.name").equals("Windows")) return; This sounds not entirely unreasonable, but there is one disadvantage: if the Win system has a working shell, it seems a shame not to run this test. But in this case it's probably not important one way or the other: if the Runtime.exec() fails, you can just return. It's really only gcj that needs these tests as far as I am aware. Andrew.