On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:28:56 +0000 "Eoff, Ullysses A" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >-----Original Message----- > >From: wayland-devel- > >[email protected] [mailto:wayland- > >[email protected]] On Behalf > >Of Pekka Paalanen > >Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 7:30 AM > >To: [email protected] > >Cc: Pekka Paalanen > >Subject: [PATCH weston] tests: make signal other than ABRT a hard failure > > > >We handle FAIL_TEST tests by simply inverting the success flag. The > >problem with this is, that if a FAIL_TEST fails by a SIGSEGV, it will be > >interpreted as passed. However, no code should ever cause a SEGV, or any > >other signal than ABRT. And even ABRT only in the case of an assert() > >that is meant to fail. We would probably need more sophistication for the > >FAIL_TEST cases. > > > >For now, just interpret any other signal than ABRT as a hard failure, > >regardless whether it is a TEST or FAIL_TEST. At least segfaults do not > >cause false passes anymore. > > > > We use the same test-runner and FAIL_TEST logic in Wayland tests, too. > This change should be applied there as well. Yes indeed, but do we want to push this quick hack forward, or should we make something more robust, like a special expected_to_fail() kind of variant of assert(), so that we would differentiate between expected failures and unexpected failures in tests that are expected to fail? Well, the answer is obvious, I guess, but I'm busy on the sub-surface work for now. I'd like to get a draft out before holidays. Thanks, pq _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
