Randy Kobes wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Steve Hay wrote:
>
>
>
>>Randy Kobes wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 24 Apr 2004, Stas Bekman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Randy Kobes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hi,
>>>>> One Win32, t/filter/out_str)subreq_default fails
>>>>>on Win32 because of different line endings. This:
>>>>>=====================================================
>>>>>Index: out_str_subreq_default.t
>>>>>===================================================================
>>>>>RCS file: /home/cvs/modperl-2.0/t/filter/out_str_subreq_default.t,v
>>>>>retrieving revision 1.1
>>>>>diff -u -r1.1 out_str_subreq_default.t
>>>>>--- out_str_subreq_default.t 4 Mar 2004 15:16:10 -0000 1.1
>>>>>+++ out_str_subreq_default.t 24 Apr 2004 05:47:53 -0000
>>>>>@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
>>>>>
>>>>>my $expected = join '', $content1, $subrequest, $content2, $filter;
>>>>>my $received = GET_BODY $location;
>>>>>+$received =~ s{\r}{}g;
>>>>>
>>>>>ok t_cmp($expected, $received,
>>>>> "testing filter-originated lookup_uri() call to core served URI");
>>>>>=================================================================
>>>>>fixes it, but perhaps there's a cleaner way?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>+1, but please add '... if WIN32;' so it's clear why we do that.
>>>>
>>>>What's strange is that this test exists for quite a
>>>>while, and only now it stopped working? Or does it have
>>>>to do with how the server side files were checked out?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I'm not sure what's happened - you're right, these have been
>>>there for a while (since March 4). For me, the most
>>>significant change since then is to upgrade to
>>>Apache/2.0.49. Steve, have you noticed a change in this
>>>test, and if so, does the above diff make any difference?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I just checked out the latest CVS mp2 and all tests run successfully,
>>even without your patch.
>>
>>This is using Apache 2.0.49 and Perl 5.8.3 on WinXP.
>>
>>- Steve
>>
>>
>
>Sigh :) Geoff reminded us that he also found a failure
>in this test due to line endings - I guess it wouldn't
>hurt to apply the patch (specifying it's for Win32), and
>come back later to why it seems necessary for some and
>not necessary for others.
>
I guess so -- I meant to say: I tried it /with/ the patch as well, and
it still works, so the patch doesn't break anything for me.
- Steve
------------------------------------------------
Radan Computational Ltd.
The information contained in this message and any files transmitted with it are
confidential and intended for the addressee(s) only. If you have received this
message in error or there are any problems, please notify the sender immediately. The
unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this message is strictly
forbidden. Note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those
of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Radan Computational Ltd. The
recipient(s) of this message should check it and any attached files for viruses: Radan
Computational will accept no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted
by this email.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
