Re: Image::Magick vs Test::Harness 3.00
On 8 Nov 2007, at 07:29, Andreas J. Koenig wrote:
Since 3.00 I have the following test output in my Image::Magick test
t/wmf/read..
1..2
ok 1
ok 2
ok
You already have a parser for (t/wmf/read.t) at /home/src/perl/
repoperls/installed-perls/perl/pe1S7WD/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/lib/5.10.0/
TAP/Harness.pm line 412
On IRC AndyA and I already had a short exchange about this and Andy
cannot reproduce it. I can confirm that I see the other broken test
output from I:M in t/setattribute.t. But when I fix this in their
test, the problem with T:H output remains for me.
I've sent them a patch for t/setattribute.t. Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
has accepted it and seems to be a good contact.
% make test
/bin/sh ../magick.sh PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /home/src/perl/repoperls/
installed-perls/perl/pe1S7WD/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/bin/perl -
MExtUtils::Command::MM -e test_harness(0, 'blib/lib', 'blib/
arch') t/*.t t/bzlib/*.t t/jpeg/*.t t/jp2/*.t t/png/*.t t/tiff/*.t
t/wmf/*.t t/wmf/*.t t/zlib/*.t
Because in the Makefile.PL it says:
foreach $delegate (qw/bzlib fontconfig freetype jpeg jp2 lcms png
tiff wmf x11 xml wmf zlib/) {
if( -d t/$delegate ) {
$delegate_tests .= t/$delegate/*.t;
}
}
I see the wmf twice there. Everything beyond this point is not of
interest for Test::Harness. I'll take that bug over to Image-Magick.
Maybe an upgrade has this fixed already.
I think I'm not seeing that bug because IM is building without WMF
support on my machine.
So this is a new (to me) incompatibility: with old T:H it was OK to
run a test twice, with the new one it isn't. Maybe this restriction
could be lifted, I have no strong opinion. In any case the error
message could be improved, something like. Did you call this test
twice? might really help to nail such a bug quicker.
Definitely +1 to a better error message. I've added the text
Perhaps you have run the same test twice.
after the existing error message.
The reason we error at all is part of a general fail-early philosophy
- it's a testing after all - so anything unexpected might indicate
trouble.
--
Andy Armstrong, Hexten
Image::Magick vs Test::Harness 3.00
Since 3.00 I have the following test output in my Image::Magick test
t/wmf/read..
1..2
ok 1
ok 2
ok
You already have a parser for (t/wmf/read.t) at
/home/src/perl/repoperls/installed-perls/perl/pe1S7WD/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]/lib/5.10.0/TAP/Harness.pm line 412
On IRC AndyA and I already had a short exchange about this and Andy
cannot reproduce it. I can confirm that I see the other broken test
output from I:M in t/setattribute.t. But when I fix this in their
test, the problem with T:H output remains for me.
% for f in ImageMagick-6.3.5-2.tar.bz2; do ls -l $f;md5sum $f;done
-rw-rw-r-- 1 k k 6088930 2007-07-17 20:15:23 ImageMagick-6.3.5-2.tar.bz2
20b2867f6c34de7034cbe5f56fc5a671 ImageMagick-6.3.5-2.tar.bz2
Tested with [EMAIL PROTECTED] and @32235, stock 5.8.8, 5.8.7.
Then I tested with 32235 and Test-Harness 2.99_01 with the same
result, only differing line:
[...]
t/setattribute..ok
t/tiff/read.ok
t/tiff/writeok
t/wmf/read..ok
t/wmf/read..ok
You already have a parser for (t/wmf/read.t) at
/home/src/perl/repoperls/installed-perls/perl/pe1S7WD/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]/lib/site_perl/5.10.0/TAP/Harness.pm line 377
Now I see the bug in the call to the Harness itself. It indeed calls that test
twice:
% make test
/bin/sh ../magick.sh PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1
/home/src/perl/repoperls/installed-perls/perl/pe1S7WD/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]/bin/perl -MExtUtils::Command::MM -e test_harness(0, 'blib/lib',
'blib/arch') t/*.t t/bzlib/*.t t/jpeg/*.t t/jp2/*.t t/png/*.t t/tiff/*.t
t/wmf/*.t t/wmf/*.t t/zlib/*.t
Because in the Makefile.PL it says:
foreach $delegate (qw/bzlib fontconfig freetype jpeg jp2 lcms png tiff wmf
x11 xml wmf zlib/) {
if( -d t/$delegate ) {
$delegate_tests .= t/$delegate/*.t;
}
}
I see the wmf twice there. Everything beyond this point is not of
interest for Test::Harness. I'll take that bug over to Image-Magick.
Maybe an upgrade has this fixed already.
So this is a new (to me) incompatibility: with old T:H it was OK to
run a test twice, with the new one it isn't. Maybe this restriction
could be lifted, I have no strong opinion. In any case the error
message could be improved, something like. Did you call this test
twice? might really help to nail such a bug quicker.
--
andreas
