automake-patches
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[FYI] {test-protocols} tap: improve some comments in the TAP driver


From: Stefano Lattarini
Subject: [FYI] {test-protocols} tap: improve some comments in the TAP driver
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 11:05:30 +0200
User-agent: KMail/1.13.3 (Linux/2.6.30-2-686; KDE/4.4.4; i686; ; )

* lib/tap-driver (handle_tap_plan): Improve comments describing
possible errors in a "plan with SKIP" directive.
---
 ChangeLog      |    6 ++++++
 lib/tap-driver |   12 ++++++------
 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/ChangeLog b/ChangeLog
index 9a1d601..d346d05 100644
--- a/ChangeLog
+++ b/ChangeLog
@@ -1,5 +1,11 @@
 2011-08-12  Stefano Lattarini  <address@hidden>
 
+       tap: improve some comments in the TAP driver
+       * lib/tap-driver (handle_tap_plan): Improve comments describing
+       possible errors in a "plan with SKIP" directive.
+
+2011-08-12  Stefano Lattarini  <address@hidden>
+
        tap: non-zero exit status after "Bail out!" should not be reported
        This new behaviour is more consistent with that of the `prove'
        utility.  Also, experience with the use of TAP in the Automake's
diff --git a/lib/tap-driver b/lib/tap-driver
index b7a8ffb..0f4eb84 100755
--- a/lib/tap-driver
+++ b/lib/tap-driver
@@ -369,12 +369,12 @@ sub handle_tap_plan ($)
   # So, if we find it after having already seen at least one TAP result,
   # set a flag signaling that no more TAP results are acceptable.
   $tap_stopped = 1 if $testno >= 1;
-  # If the plan contains a SKIP directive, and it's not an error, we
-  # want to report it as a particular kind of SKIP result.
-  # If "$testno > 0", we have is an error that will be automatically
-  # dealt with later, so don't worry about it here.
-  # If "$plan_seen" is true, we have an error due to a repeated plan,
-  # and that has already been dealt with above.
+  # If $testno > 0, we have an error ("too many tests run") that will be
+  # automatically dealt with later, so don't worry about it here.  If
+  # $plan_seen is true, we have an error due to a repeated plan, and that
+  # has already been dealt with above.  Otherwise, we have a valid "plan
+  # with SKIP" specification, and should report it as a particular kind
+  # of SKIP result.
   if ($plan->directive && $testno == 0 && !$plan_seen)
     {
       my $explanation = $plan->explanation ?
-- 
1.7.2.3




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]