Re: [STATUS] (httpd-test: perl-framework) Wed Jan 5 23:45:15 2005
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: httpd-test/perl-framework STATUS: -*-text-*- Last modified at [$Date: 2002/03/09 05:22:48 $] Well, bugger. This moved to subversion and I didn't notice; these have been coming from the old CVS. Fixed momentarily and new ones sent out.. - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ Millennium hand and shrimp! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBQd1lBZrNPMCpn3XdAQETswP/ak2MOk2lNdhsvcV8qjPbmrJcon87w4Eu +Vi6OLCd4hKedyVGh36eUC8RP3Yhn4cueo64B1jbQjQdIbzCDm6rvslXv3S3YuQK 3dmXLp2TLmQEZfVmmk0tFbU5wWf/MXk0Zrc+VAk9FsDM5ALbjod9sjDWPUyqbtss 7H+dOBASmkA= =w+yA -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: status of the perl-framework
* Geoffrey Young [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: modules/include.t 9 2304?? ?? % ?? what does this null information mean? 2.1) Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed --- modules/include.t9 2304?? ?? % ?? 2.1 runs fine for me. 2.0 has some known flaws which are fixed with my rewrite (waiting for backport). What happens at your checkout? nd
Re: status of the perl-framework
André Malo wrote: * Geoffrey Young [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: modules/include.t 9 2304?? ?? % ?? what does this null information mean? pretty much that the script died before it could complete. for 2.1, for instance, it's a result of this warning Use of bare to mean is deprecated at modules/include.t line 120. which is probably new to 5.8.2. so, this is not a big deal, and it's not just mod_include that has warning troubles. so, I'll tidy up the perl and that will help a few things along. 2.1) Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed --- modules/include.t9 2304?? ?? % ?? 2.1 runs fine for me. 2.0 has some known flaws which are fixed with my rewrite (waiting for backport). we can capture the 2.0/2.1 differences with have_min_apache_version() or similar logic, so no worries there either. basically, this kind of tidying was what I had in mind - I really doubt that there will be much in the logic of the tests that will need to change, if anything. sound ok? --Geoff
Re: status of the perl-framework
* Geoffrey Young [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: André Malo wrote: * Geoffrey Young [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: modules/include.t 9 2304?? ?? % ?? what does this null information mean? pretty much that the script died before it could complete. for 2.1, for instance, it's a result of this warning Use of bare to mean is deprecated at modules/include.t line 120. which is probably new to 5.8.2. Interesting. doesn't occur within include.t. So it happens within the framework? we can capture the 2.0/2.1 differences with have_min_apache_version() or similar logic, so no worries there either. basically, this kind of tidying was what I had in mind - I really doubt that there will be much in the logic of the tests that will need to change, if anything. sound ok? I'm not sure. IMHO we should leave the failures and coredumps until the module is fixed :-) nd
Re: status of the perl-framework
Use of bare to mean is deprecated at modules/include.t line 120. which is probably new to 5.8.2. Interesting. doesn't occur within include.t. So it happens within the framework? hmm, perhaps. I was actually planning on getting down and dirty tomorrow :) but yes, it could be the framework or an interaction between them. sound ok? I'm not sure. IMHO we should leave the failures and coredumps until the module is fixed :-) well, my idea (at least) is to have a clean test suite for 1.3, 2.0, and 2.1. theoretically, there may be broken code in 2.0 indefinitely - places where the answer is yes, we know it's broken. please upgrade. in cases like that, it's probably more proper to skip (or todo) the test on one platform, rather than having the tests constantly (knowingly) fail. where I'm going with all of this is that if we have a clean test suite for all versions, then maybe it would help to relieve the burden from core folks if patchers could say patch attached, all tests pass. not that it would replace other due diligence factors, mind you, but it might make the difference to some core developer in deciding whether to shepherd a patch in if they knew the didn't need to mess around with even getting it to compile or the tests to pass. now, you can't change a community, and I'm not trying to (well, not directly anyway :) however, none of the above can happen without a clean test suite, so I'm doing what I can in case it makes a difference. if you build it, they will come. but contrary opinions welcome :) --Geoff
Re: status of the perl-framework
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Geoffrey Young wrote: Use of bare to mean is deprecated at modules/include.t line 120. which is probably new to 5.8.2. Interesting. doesn't occur within include.t. So it happens within the framework? hmm, perhaps. I was actually planning on getting down and dirty tomorrow :) but yes, it could be the framework or an interaction between them. Sounds like a cvs conflict marker. --Cliff
Re: status of the perl-framework
Cliff Woolley wrote: On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Geoffrey Young wrote: Use of bare to mean is deprecated at modules/include.t line 120. which is probably new to 5.8.2. Interesting. doesn't occur within include.t. So it happens within the framework? hmm, perhaps. I was actually planning on getting down and dirty tomorrow :) but yes, it could be the framework or an interaction between them. Sounds like a cvs conflict marker. duh. that was it. eesh. --Geoff
Re: status of the perl-framework
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Geoffrey Young wrote: Sounds like a cvs conflict marker. duh. that was it. eesh. I only knew that because it happens to me all the time. ;) nbd. --JC
