Re: cvs commit: httpd-test/perl-framework/t/apache errordoc.t
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 05:03:50PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- errordoc.t 12 Jul 2004 16:44:47 - 1.2
+++ errordoc.t 12 Jul 2004 17:03:49 - 1.3
@@ -59,8 +59,7 @@
'/redefine/notfound.html code');
# 1.3 requires quotes for hard-coded messages
-my $expected = have_min_apache_version('2.1') ? qr/Not Found/ :
- have_apache(2) ? 'default' :
+my $expected = have_apache(2) ? qr/Not Found/ :
qr/Additionally, a 500/;
This makes the test fail against 2.0.50, but it's just a lack-of-feature
right, so OK if I half-revert this?
--- t/apache/errordoc.t 12 Jul 2004 17:03:49 - 1.3
+++ t/apache/errordoc.t 16 Jul 2004 12:16:25 -
@@ -59,7 +59,8 @@
'/redefine/notfound.html code');
# 1.3 requires quotes for hard-coded messages
-my $expected = have_apache(2) ? qr/Not Found/ :
+my $expected = have_min_apache_version('2.0.51') ? qr/Not Found/ :
+ have_apache(2)? 'default' :
qr/Additionally, a 500/;
ok t_cmp($content,
Re: cvs commit: httpd-test/perl-framework/t/apache errordoc.t
This makes the test fail against 2.0.50, but it's just a lack-of-feature
right, so OK if I half-revert this?
the last time I asked about this, the consensus was that the perl-framework
is expected to be for developer use only, expected to run (and in some cases
compile) successfully only on current CVS 1.3/2.0/2.1.
IIRC there are some things that will definitely fail in older httpd releases
(some mod_include stuff comes to mind) and we haven't coded around
have_min_apache_version for exactly this reason.
--- t/apache/errordoc.t 12 Jul 2004 17:03:49 - 1.3
+++ t/apache/errordoc.t 16 Jul 2004 12:16:25 -
@@ -59,7 +59,8 @@
'/redefine/notfound.html code');
# 1.3 requires quotes for hard-coded messages
-my $expected = have_apache(2) ? qr/Not Found/ :
+my $expected = have_min_apache_version('2.0.51') ? qr/Not Found/ :
+ have_apache(2)? 'default' :
qr/Additionally, a 500/;
ok t_cmp($content,
I'm not necessarily against this, except that this isn't the only test that
will fail if you use something less than cvs.
so, perhaps now is a good time to reevaluate the prior consensus. is the
perl-framework a developer tool or should we be accounting for httpd changes
between releases?
I just ran against 2.0.46 (which is the oldest httpd the mod_perl currently
supports, so I keep one laying around :) and the only failures are from
errordoc.t and include.t. while errordoc.t is easy enough to fix with your
patch, mod_include may be a bit more difficult, since IIRC the changes
spanned several httpd releases.
--Geoff
Re: cvs commit: httpd-test/perl-framework/t/apache errordoc.t
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 09:08:42AM -0400, Geoffrey Young wrote: This makes the test fail against 2.0.50, but it's just a lack-of-feature right, so OK if I half-revert this? the last time I asked about this, the consensus was that the perl-framework is expected to be for developer use only, expected to run (and in some cases compile) successfully only on current CVS 1.3/2.0/2.1. Well, my position is: I don't care whether it passes against 1.3 (which it doesn't :), I do care that it works against the latest 2.0 release along with tip-of-2.0-branch and 2.1/HEAD as you say. When testing for *bugs*, there's certainly a debate about whether to skip tests for bugs in older releases (I don't care much are about that). For *features*, I don't think there's much to argue about. We know this feature works only in 2.0.51 and later, so why test for it in earlier releases? (this is the only failure against 2.0.50 other than the mod_include unexpected passes fwiw) Regards, joe
