From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Haley <aph@pasanda.cygnus.co.uk>
To: mauve-discuss@sourceware.cygnus.com
Subject: Re: New files checked in.
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 04:02:00 -0000
Message-id: <19990401120235.23220.qmail@pasanda.cygnus.co.uk>
References: <199903141705.JAA25942@hoser.cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 1999-04/msg00000.html

> Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 09:05:45 -0800
> From: Anthony Green <green@cygnus.com>
> 
> I've checked in a few of the new tests from HP. Andrew Haley did the
> initial conversion to make them work in our framework.
> 
> If you run them, you'll see that the test count isn't significantly
> higher than before.  It has to do with how the tests are counted.
> Their code tries all kinds of things and only register failures when
> they happen, whereas we like to keep track of `passes' as well.  My
> hope is that that these files will slowly migrate over to using the
> harness.check methods rather than just harness.fail.  If anyone feels
> inspired, that would be very helpful.

I've converted every instance of

	if (testcase)
          harness.fail ("Error");

to
        harness.check (!(testcase),
          "Error");

I did this automatically and have not attempted to rationalize any of
the tests.  This means that you'll see a lot of things like

	harness.check(!( !nan.isNaN())

but at least you'll now get a more accurate count of test passes.
This doesn't work in every case, because there are many instances of
things like

		try {
			testcase;
		}
		catch ( Exception e )
		{
			harness.fail("Error");	
		}

and
                if (testcase)
		{
			System.out.print (diagnostic);
			harness.fail("Error");	
		}

which do not easily fit into the harness.check() way of doing things.

Andrew.