[Top][All Lists]

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

[Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #59114] RapidJSON feature test is unspecific

From: Markus Mützel
Subject: [Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #59114] RapidJSON feature test is unspecific
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 13:58:05 -0400 (EDT)
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/85.0.4183.102 Safari/537.36 Edg/85.0.564.51


                 Summary: RapidJSON feature test is unspecific
                 Project: GNU Octave
            Submitted by: mmuetzel
            Submitted on: Tue 15 Sep 2020 07:58:02 PM CEST
                Category: Configuration and Build System
                Severity: 3 - Normal
                Priority: 5 - Normal
              Item Group: None
                  Status: None
             Assigned to: None
         Originator Name: 
        Originator Email: 
             Open/Closed: Open
                 Release: dev
         Discussion Lock: Any
        Operating System: Any



On 8/18/20, jwe wrote on the mailing list:
> Thanks for working on this new feature.
> After
>   changeset:   28623:5da49e37a6c9
>   user:        Abdallah Elshamy <abdallah.k.elshamy@gmail.com>
>   date:        Thu Aug 13 23:57:07 2020 +0900
>   summary:     New functions jsondecode and jsonencode (bug #53100).
> I noticed all tests for jsonencode and jsondecode were skipped on my
> system.  I have
>   ii  rapidjson-dev  1.1.0+dfsg2-6 all          fast JSON
> parser/generator for C++ with SAX/DOM style API
> installed.  When running configure, I see
>   configure: WARNING: RapidJSON 1.1.0 or older found, but latest
> development version needed.  Octave will not be able to read or write
> JSON files.
> The configure test that generates that message checks for
> rapidjson/cursorstreamwrapper.h, but the error message is about the
> RapidJSON version, and cursorstreamwrapper.h does not appear to be used
> directly in the Octave sources.  What feature(s) do we really need here?
>  If possible, think we should check for the required features and, if
> they are not found, issue a warning about that rather than something
> about a version since the need for a development version will likely
> change soon.

I agree that it would probably be better to test for the feature we use (i.e.,
rapidjson::PrettyWriter IIUC).

Opening a bug report so that this doesn't get lost.


Reply to this item at:


  Message sent via Savannah

reply via email to

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