From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26401 invoked by alias); 1 May 2004 09:49:25 -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 26390 invoked from network); 1 May 2004 09:49:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtpq1.home.nl) (213.51.128.196) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 May 2004 09:49:24 -0000 Received: from [213.51.128.135] (port=43123 helo=smtp4.home.nl) by smtpq1.home.nl with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1BJr7b-00038y-Ca for mauve-discuss@sources.redhat.com; Sat, 01 May 2004 11:49:23 +0200 Received: from cc68231-a.ensch1.ov.home.nl ([212.120.112.227]:32784 helo=dumas.thomas.planescape.com) by smtp4.home.nl with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1BJr7i-00072c-O7 for mauve-discuss@sources.redhat.com; Sat, 01 May 2004 11:49:30 +0200 From: Thomas Zander To: mauve-discuss@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Some issues.. Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 09:49:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <788B535AB1F9CB49BB9C229372B50ACC0ADEA3@LEMBU.sumatrasoftware.com> <200404291517.22903.zander@javalobby.org> <16529.7946.481687.868491@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <16529.7946.481687.868491@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <200405011148.16628.zander@javalobby.org> X-AtHome-MailScanner-Information: Please contact support@home.nl for more information X-AtHome-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-SW-Source: 2004-q2/txt/msg00060.txt.bz2 -----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. =A0If it doesn't run on some system, > > > what is lost? =A0All 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= =20 present.=20=20 If(System.getProperty("os.name").equals("Windows")) return; 2) add tags to the source files that say "Exclude this on.." Tags like: Windows, i386, 64bit etc. 3) add negative tags to the sourc files that say: "Only run this test on.." Tags like: Unix, 32bit, Kaffe etc. - --=20 Thomas -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAk3JfCojCW6H2z/QRAk5uAKCNQhwbaX82CxizgYJMNd/FxANgrQCghUOD D07PnmqzkMUmdAJdzN3DSyw=3D =3Dq/Un -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----