[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Gnucap-devel] testing

From: al davis
Subject: Re: [Gnucap-devel] testing
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 14:00:02 -0500
User-agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.2.0-4-amd64; KDE/4.8.4; x86_64; ; )

On Friday 30 January 2015, Felix Salfelder wrote:
> thought so. weird enough, the bug is not present in gnucap-uf
> (i would not have noticed otherwise).

I looked ....  You made some changes there in gnucap-uf (the 
frozen flag), so the bug didn't show in that test case.

Remembering .... very old versions of gnucap and its 
predecessors handled this differently, which didn't necessarily 
lose the probes when expanded again, but it crashed sometimes.  
That was before I was doing such rigorous testing.

That test case just added a resistor, didn't change the node 

So I made another test case that adds a node.  gnucap-uf then 
gave wrong answers because of a mismatch because the subcircuit 
wasn't remapped.  I have some ideas, but for now losing the 
probes is less of a problem than the alternatives.

> to the point. a test that witnesses a bug is valuable and
> should be identifiable. a comment might be sufficient. other
> projects with test suites permit tests that are flagged
> 'expected to fail'. this is a great way to maintain a todo
> list...
> (surprise: this is provided by autotools [1]).

Not really surprising.  autotools does a lot, all mixed up, in a 
very complex way that is impossible to test adequately.

reply via email to

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