Re: Removing XFAILs from test suite summary

[Rik]

On 04/12/2018 11:13 AM, Mike Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 14:20:02 -0400, John W. Eaton wrote:
>> If it's easy to find reports for those, then I'd say add the numbers.
>> Otherwise, we should probably just convert them to plain %!test blocks.
> There are six remaining bare xtests, not including the one in test.m
> itself.

I took care of that in 25216:b72972ab83f1.

>
> The only tests in tar.m and zip.m are xtest, presumably because the host
> system may or may not have the tar, zip, or unzip programs installed.
> These could probably be changed into testif with a runtime condition to
> look for tar{,.exe}, unzip{,.exe}, and zip{,.exe}.
>
> There is a xtest in fminsearch.m with a long comment about how the test
> may fail. It was added as xtest
>
>   https://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/rev/9241a0fa7873#l1.376
>
> There is a xtest in clf.m having to do with papertype, maybe Rik
> remembers why this was added as xtest
>
>   https://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/rev/498b9f62199a

Alas, no memory of this.  I just changed this to an ordinary %!test and ran

for i = 1:1000
  bm(i) = test ('clf');
end
sum (bm)
ans = 1000

Why don't you just go for it and change it over to an ordinary %!test and
we will see if it fails on other platforms.

--Rik
> There are two xtests in speed.m that say they are known to fail on
> systems with low resolution timer functions such as MinGW. The comment
> suggests adding more work to make the test run longer so it won't fail.
> Can someone test these on a current mxe-octave build to see if this is
> still a problem?
>