octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: patch for io.tst


From: c.
Subject: Re: patch for io.tst
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 13:08:07 +0100

On 22 Dec 2013, at 19:25, Rik <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 12/22/2013 07:15 AM, address@hidden wrote:
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 15:46:05 +0100
>> From: "c." <address@hidden>
>> To: Daniel J Sebald <address@hidden>
>> Cc: "John W. Eaton" <address@hidden>,        octave-maintainers
>>      <address@hidden>
>> Subject: Re: Octave 3.8.0-rc2 release candidate available for ftp
>> Message-ID: <address@hidden>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>> 
>> 
>> On 22 Dec 2013, at 10:00, c. <address@hidden> wrote:
>> 
>>>> As I pointed out before, the test failures in "io.tst" are bogus, 
>>>> they only appear when running "__run_test_suite__" or  "make check", 
>>>> otherwise (if running the code directly or through "test io.tst")
>>>> there is no failure:
>>>> 
>>>>>>>> test /opt/local/share/octave/3.8.0-rc2/etc/tests/fixed/io.tst
>>>> PASSES 85 out of 85 tests
>> The attached changeset solves the problem for me.
>> Is it OK to push? Which branch should it go on?
> 

Hi Rik,
Thanks for your comments.

> Carlo,
> 
> Is this line of the patch necessary?
> 
> -%!      eval (sprintf ("save %s %s %s", opts{i}, files{i}, vars));
> +%!      eval (sprintf ("save %s %s %s", files{i}, opts{i}, vars));
> 
> According to the documentation for save, options should come first.
> 
> -- Command:  save file
> -- Command:  save options file
> -- Command:  save options file V1 V2 ...
> -- Command:  save options file -struct STRUCT F1 F2 ...


Indeed that is not needed.

> Second thought is that it might make the code look cleaner if you defined a
> filename variable to hold the temporary filename for each test rather than
> using the fullfile syntax every time. 
> 
> Example:
> 
> fname = fullfile (P_tmpdir, "matrix.ascii");
> save ("-ascii", fname, "matrix1")
> matrix2 = load (fname);
> assert (matrix1, matrix2)
> delete (fname);

sure, that makes sense.

Here's a modified changeset, which branch is most appropriate for it?

> Cheers,
> Rik

c.


Attachment: open_oCpn6BzA.txt
Description: Text document



reply via email to

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