[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [PATCH] {maint} tests: new subroutines for test skipping/failing

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: [PATCH] {maint} tests: new subroutines for test skipping/failing
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 20:29:02 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2010-08-04)

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 08:23:20PM CET:
> On Wednesday 19 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > 
> > the
> > 
> > will let Solaris sh pass foo=1 to the test, but bash will pass foo=2.
> >
> Oh joy, I hadn't thought about this YAPI (Yet Another Portability Issue).

Well, Posix even leaves this undefined IIRC.

> > So I'm afraid that at the very least, AM_TESTS_ENVIRONMENT cannot have
> > the same semantics (just set variables, no export, no semi-colon at end)
> > as TESTS_ENVIRONMENT.  So if the developer needs to use `foo=1; export
> > foo' anyway, there is not so much point in having separated *TESTS_SETUP
> > variables any more.  Or so I think.
> >
> I must agree now.  Oh well, no big deal once TESTS_SETUP and AM_TESTS_SETUP
> are in place.

Well, what I was trying to say is: what use is TESTS_SETUP if we expand

?  It can simply be merged into TESTS_ENVIRONMENT; there is no point in
keeping them separate.

And then, we can rename AM_TESTS_SETUP to AM_TESTS_ENVIRONMENT if we
like, or not (consistency vs. green bikeshed question).

I'll leave it up to the person who writes the documentation with
detailed explanation of intended semantics.


reply via email to

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