Re: Test suite regressions vs expected failures

[Mike Miller]

On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 22:24:51 -0700, Rik wrote:
> When I added the tests they were not tagged as regressions, just regular
> tests.  The '*' tag should be removed from these BIST tests.

Right, that marking didn't even exist at the time, it was added later by
jwe because the bug is marked as fixed.

So I now understand that the test was added to reflect a portion of the
bug that wasn't fixed, even though the bug is closed and marked fixed.

> For bug #50893 we need to decide what level of Matlab compatibility we are
> striving for.  The tests in for.tst contain actual expected results as
> determined under Matlab.  For example, this test
> 
> -- Code --
> %! cnt = 0;
> %! for k = zeros (0,3);
> %!   cnt++;
> %! endfor
> %! assert (cnt, 0);
> %! assert (k, zeros (0,1));
> -- End Code --
> 
> Both Octave and Matlab now create an empty variable k which is the more
> important thing. Of lesser importance, but up for discussion here on the
> Maintainer's List, is whether we want exact compatibility.  Octave executes
> the initialization statement exactly as written in the for loop so the
> variable k is of size 0x3.  Matlab creates the empty variable k but the
> size is 0x1.

I think Octave is compatible enough, and arguably more correct here, so
I would change the last line of the test to either

    %! assert (k, zeros (0,3));

or

    %! assert (isempty (k))

-- 
mike

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature