On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 03:54:31PM +0100, "Gerrit P. Haase" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Merijn,
>
> > On Tue 24 Feb 2004 12:52, "H.Merijn Brand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Tue 24 Feb 2004 11:09, "Gerrit P. Haase" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > > Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed
> >> > >
> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > ../ext/IPC/SysV/t/ipcsysv.t 1 256 16 32 200.00% 1-16
> >> > > ../ext/IPC/SysV/t/msg.t 0 12 ?? ?? % ??
> >> > > ../ext/IPC/SysV/t/sem.t 0 12 ?? ?? % ??
> >> > > ../lib/ExtUtils/t/Install.t 0 139 ?? ?? % ??
> >> > > ../lib/IPC/SysV.t 1 256 16 32 200.00% 1-16
> >> > > op/sysio.t 39 1 2.56% 39
> >> > > op/taint.t 0 12 223 148 66.37% 150-223
> >> > > 50 tests and 514 subtests skipped.
> >> > > Failed 7/872 test scripts, 99.20% okay. 107/80975 subtests failed, 99.87%
> >> > > okay.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > For IPC function without cygipc, the cygserver needs to run during the
> >> > test runs.
> >>
> >> IIRC Yitzchak was about to change the test to skip the test if the server was
> >> not running.
It might be a while before I have time.
> > Sorry for the speedy follow up
>
> > On second though, how feasible is it to
>
> > if (cygserver_running ()) {
> > do_tests ();
> > }
> > elif (cygserver_installed ()) {
> > start_cygserver ();
> > do_tests ();
> > stop_cygserver ();
> > }
> > else {
> > skip_tests ();
> > }
>
> > or is this too much of a security risk?
>
>
> Security? I think that is not a problem on a developer box.
> Would be nice to have this auto-detect feature IMO.
I don't know that it's worth the trouble of differentiating between having
the server not installed and the server installed but not running (or the
server installed and running but CYGWIN=server not set), so I'm not inclined
to worry about it; skipping the tests should be good enough.
Can someone with commit access delete lib/IPC/SysV.t which is an exact
duplicate of ext/IPC/SysV/t/ipcsysv.t?
