scsh-hackers
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Scsh-hackers] 0.6.4 Beta 1

To: "Brian D. Carlstrom" <bdc@ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [Scsh-hackers] 0.6.4 Beta 1
From: Martin Gasbichler <gasbichl@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>
Date: Thu Mar 13 23:31:03 2003
Cc: Eric Marsden <emarsden@laas.fr>, scsh-hackers <scsh-hackers@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-id: Discussion among the implementors <scsh-hackers.lists.sourceforge.net>
Sender: scsh-hackers-admin@lists.sourceforge.net
>>>>> "Brian" == Brian D Carlstrom <bdc@zurich.ai.mit.edu> writes:

Brian> Eric Marsden writes:
>> >>>>> "mg" == Martin Gasbichler <gasbichl@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> 
>> >>>>> writes:
>> 
mg> + make check tests only the S48 part (with it's borken socket
mg> implementation). The tests relevant to scsh itself can be invoked by
mg> 
mg> scsh -lm scsh/test/test-packages.scm -o test-all -c "(test-all)"
>> 
>> ok, these tests work on MacOS X. This was scsh 0.6.4 (Beta 4).

Brian> I updated to the latest (as of this afternoon) cygwin. Things basically
Brian> work. I hadn't run test-all before. I found that there are failures
Brian> because Win32 with cygwin doesn't have fifos. Is there a methodology for
Brian> skipping tests based on platform? Should I not add the test with
Brian> add-test! or should I check within the test itself? I think the former
Brian> would make more sense.

There is no methodology for skipping tests yet. However, your fifo
example is there only case I'm aware of where a feature of scsh
doesn't work on all systems. I would rather declare this a bug in scsh
(which of course we cannot fix) than changing the test suite to skip
the test. We could add some output to test-all saying which tests are
known to fail due to bug in scsh or add an optional argument to
add-test! which indicates whether the test is known to fail.


-- 
Martin


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>