Hi Eric, * Eric Blake wrote on Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 02:13:43PM CEST: > According to Eric Blake on 4/6/2009 11:14 AM: > > probably need to teach more of autotest about automake's recent addition of > > status 99 meaning hardfail (not even XFAIL can exempt it from making the > > overall testsuite report failure), but that is why this patch below used > > at_status=99. > > As in the following. Any objections to this patch? In addition to adding > hard failures, it documents and tests AT_CHECK_NOESCAPE, and also tests > the ability to run post-AT_CHECK cleanup.
I'm wondering whether s/AT_CHECK_NOESCAPE/AT_CHECK_EXPAND/g would be good. Even with that, the name makes me think that the macro would do something different with its first argument, rather than arguments number three and four. Unfortunately, I don't have a good suggestion to improve this. Cheers, and thanks, Ralf > >From 05aa7f60a72577d4923b538c03f6a75d0cbf3e1b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Eric Blake <e...@byu.net> > Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 06:02:42 -0600 > Subject: [PATCH] Teach AT_CHECK about hard failures. > > * lib/autotest/general.m4 (AT_INIT) <at_fn_check_skip> > <at_fn_check_status, at_fn_group_postprocess>: Handle hard > failures. > * doc/autoconf.texi (Writing Testsuites) <AT_CHECK>: Document > AT_CHECK_NOESCAPE and exit status 99. > * NEWS: Likewise. > * tests/autotest.at (Hard fail, Cleanup): New tests.