Re: gnustep-base tests

[Richard Frith-Macdonald]

> On 10 May 2016, at 23:29, Stefan Bidigaray <stefanbidi@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I feel like I'm having deja vu. We spoke about this a few months back. The 
> issue is that the ICU's "display" functions are not guaranteed to have a 
> stable output. Makes sense, because languages and conventions change over 
> time.
> 
> This issue is unrelated to this problem. Without looking at the code and 
> going only off memory, the issue has to do with the fact that we're testing 
> for a particular behavior, but ICU changed since the test was written. It's 
> tough writing tests for ICU, because there are no guarantees anywhere. The 
> only guarantee is that a human being will be able to interpret it. The ICU 
> output changed some time around version 4.4 or 48.
> 
> Still, these shouldn't be a "hopeful" just because the tests should always 
> pass, a (nil), for example, is not acceptable.

I think we have actually only seen two different formats from the ICU library.
So I took the simple option to allow both;


      /* Different versions of ICU use different formats, so we need to
       * permit alternative results.
       */
      str = [fmt stringFromNumber: num];
      PASS([str isEqual: @"(R$1.235)"] || [str isEqual: @"_R$1.235"],
        "negativeFormat used for -ve number");