Ticket UUID: | 720934 | |||
Title: | Test failures in math::fuzzy | |||
Type: | Bug | Version: | None | |
Submitter: | andreas_kupries | Created on: | 2003-04-14 06:33:00 | |
Subsystem: | math | Assigned To: | arjenmarkus | |
Priority: | 9 Immediate | Severity: | ||
Status: | Closed | Last Modified: | 2003-04-24 13:23:57 | |
Resolution: | Fixed | Closed By: | andreas_kupries | |
Closed on: | 2003-04-23 17:28:19 | |||
Description: |
When running the testsuite for 'math' I get three failures in the math::fuzzy testsuite. Attached the log for the whole math package. | |||
User Comments: |
arjenmarkus added on 2003-04-24 13:23:57:
Logged In: YES user_id=400048 I have been too hasty - I apologize. I did not do a cvs update. Curiously enough I also did not get any conflicts ... I have not had the luxury to work with CVS these past few years (we switched to another product that I still can not feel at ease with), so I have to relearn the proper etiquette. andreas_kupries added on 2003-04-24 00:28:19: Logged In: YES user_id=75003 Committed re-applied fixes. Verified that the changes fix this bug too. Done. andreas_kupries added on 2003-04-23 23:31:43: Logged In: YES user_id=75003 Thank you. With a weeping eye. Did you run a cvs update before your changes ? Or did you get a message about conflicts when you tried to commit, and then copied the new version of the one provided by the CVS ? Because the improved version is based on the code you originally submitted, and thus overwrites the bugfixes and cleanups I did. Especially the bugfix to make the file operable overall as part of the tcllib testsuite. Ok, water under the bridge. I will now re-apply my changes to your improved version to get these fixes back. However I do ask you to make sure that your development is either based on the code we have in the tcllib CVS, or to make sure that your updates are correctly merged instead of simply overwriting anything which was done with what is essentially an old version with different changes. arjenmarkus added on 2003-04-23 20:33:50: Logged In: YES user_id=400048 I have committed an improved version arjenmarkus added on 2003-04-22 15:37:28: Logged In: YES user_id=400048 Okay, that is a very reasonable (and probably the only good) solution. I will repair this and submit a new test suite andreas_kupries added on 2003-04-22 01:27:40: Logged In: YES user_id=75003 No. Tests never fail(in the absence of bugs). If a test drives the functionality intentionally into an error state then the test has to check that the error state has occured, and report that as a sucess. And if the intended error state did not occur, then that is a failure of the functionality, and that is a failure of the test. Example (taken from struct, graph) test graph-0.1 {graph errors} { graph mygraph catch {graph mygraph} msg mygraph destroy set msg } "command \"mygraph\" already exists, unable to create graph" We intentionally call commands in an illegal way, catch the error message produced by the graph commands and check that this message is the correct one. If it is the test is sucessful. If the message is not right, then the test failed, as something in the functionality is not as we expected it. arjenmarkus added on 2003-04-14 16:33:03: Logged In: YES user_id=400048 These tests are actually meant to fail (see the description). They fail because in the version of tcltest that was used during development of the package, it was not possible to set up custom comparison routines. (It led to TIP #85 and the corresponding new version of tcltest. Perhaps it is time to update the test file.) andreas_kupries added on 2003-04-14 13:33:00: File Added - 47682: LOG |
Attachments:
- LOG [download] added by andreas_kupries on 2003-04-14 13:33:00. [details]