On 01/04/2010 08:50 PM, André Hentschel wrote:
You can see wrong coloring e.g. here http://test.winehq.org/data/f74e312bf81032c46bd2ce080a5f6a33c7ac3ee3/wine_ah... Also the counting is wrong, that unit test is shown in the summary with 2 errors, but only has 1 This patch fixes the issue. The totalize of those variables is already made in the "offline" software
winetest/dissect | 6 +++--- 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/winetest/dissect b/winetest/dissect index 16cc118..ce90bda 100755 --- a/winetest/dissect +++ b/winetest/dissect @@ -252,9 +252,9 @@ while (<IN>) { } elsif (/^(.*$unit.*: (\d+) tests executed ((\d+) marked as todo, (\d+) failures?), (\d+) skipped.)\r?$/) { $lines++; $total += $2;
$todo += $3;
$failed += $4;
$skipped += $5;
$todo = $3;
$failed = $4;
$skipped = $5; chomp; s/\r+$//; my $class = "test result";
Hi André,
That log also shows "server: 1 failures in child process". I'm not a 100% sure but from the looks of it this is that one/1 failure mentioned in that last line:
server: 120 tests executed (1 marked as todo, 1 failure), 0 skipped.
If I'm correct it does mean that we have 2 failures and 1 todo.
(cc-ing AJ as he wrote that winetest_wait_child_process() thingy).
Paul Vriens schrieb:
On 01/04/2010 08:50 PM, André Hentschel wrote:
You can see wrong coloring e.g. here http://test.winehq.org/data/f74e312bf81032c46bd2ce080a5f6a33c7ac3ee3/wine_ah...
Also the counting is wrong, that unit test is shown in the summary with 2 errors, but only has 1 This patch fixes the issue. The totalize of those variables is already made in the "offline" software
winetest/dissect | 6 +++--- 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/winetest/dissect b/winetest/dissect index 16cc118..ce90bda 100755 --- a/winetest/dissect +++ b/winetest/dissect @@ -252,9 +252,9 @@ while (<IN>) { } elsif (/^(.*$unit.*: (\d+) tests executed ((\d+) marked as todo, (\d+) failures?), (\d+) skipped.)\r?$/) { $lines++; $total += $2;
$todo += $3;
$failed += $4;
$skipped += $5;
$todo = $3;
$failed = $4;
$skipped = $5; chomp; s/\r+$//; my $class = "test result";
Hi André,
That log also shows "server: 1 failures in child process". I'm not a 100% sure but from the looks of it this is that one/1 failure mentioned in that last line:
server: 120 tests executed (1 marked as todo, 1 failure), 0 skipped.
If I'm correct it does mean that we have 2 failures and 1 todo.
(cc-ing AJ as he wrote that winetest_wait_child_process() thingy).
Hi Paul, it only occurs one failure: "server.c:1412: Test failed: RpcBindingSetAuthInfoExA failed 1747", that one happens in the child process. that is mentioned three times: server: 7 tests executed (0 marked as todo, 1 failure), 0 skipped. server: 1 failures in child process server: 120 tests executed (1 marked as todo, 1 failure), 0 skipped.
dissect adds up the two summaries, which is wrong.
On 01/04/2010 10:00 PM, André Hentschel wrote:
Paul Vriens schrieb:
On 01/04/2010 08:50 PM, André Hentschel wrote:
You can see wrong coloring e.g. here http://test.winehq.org/data/f74e312bf81032c46bd2ce080a5f6a33c7ac3ee3/wine_ah...
Also the counting is wrong, that unit test is shown in the summary with 2 errors, but only has 1 This patch fixes the issue. The totalize of those variables is already made in the "offline" software
winetest/dissect | 6 +++--- 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/winetest/dissect b/winetest/dissect index 16cc118..ce90bda 100755 --- a/winetest/dissect +++ b/winetest/dissect @@ -252,9 +252,9 @@ while (<IN>) { } elsif (/^(.*$unit.*: (\d+) tests executed ((\d+) marked as todo, (\d+) failures?), (\d+) skipped.)\r?$/) { $lines++; $total += $2;
$todo += $3;
$failed += $4;
$skipped += $5;
$todo = $3;
$failed = $4;
$skipped = $5; chomp; s/\r+$//; my $class = "test result";
Hi André,
That log also shows "server: 1 failures in child process". I'm not a 100% sure but from the looks of it this is that one/1 failure mentioned in that last line:
server: 120 tests executed (1 marked as todo, 1 failure), 0 skipped.
If I'm correct it does mean that we have 2 failures and 1 todo.
(cc-ing AJ as he wrote that winetest_wait_child_process() thingy).
Hi Paul, it only occurs one failure: "server.c:1412: Test failed: RpcBindingSetAuthInfoExA failed 1747", that one happens in the child process. that is mentioned three times: server: 7 tests executed (0 marked as todo, 1 failure), 0 skipped. server: 1 failures in child process
But is this one actually a failure that is only reported in the line below and not by itself as a "Test failed: ......"?
server: 120 tests executed (1 marked as todo, 1 failure), 0 skipped.
dissect adds up the two summaries, which is wrong.
Paul Vriens schrieb:
On 01/04/2010 10:00 PM, André Hentschel wrote:
Paul Vriens schrieb:
On 01/04/2010 08:50 PM, André Hentschel wrote:
You can see wrong coloring e.g. here http://test.winehq.org/data/f74e312bf81032c46bd2ce080a5f6a33c7ac3ee3/wine_ah...
Also the counting is wrong, that unit test is shown in the summary with 2 errors, but only has 1 This patch fixes the issue. The totalize of those variables is already made in the "offline" software
winetest/dissect | 6 +++--- 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/winetest/dissect b/winetest/dissect index 16cc118..ce90bda 100755 --- a/winetest/dissect +++ b/winetest/dissect @@ -252,9 +252,9 @@ while (<IN>) { } elsif (/^(.*$unit.*: (\d+) tests executed ((\d+) marked as todo, (\d+) failures?), (\d+) skipped.)\r?$/) { $lines++; $total += $2;
$todo += $3;
$failed += $4;
$skipped += $5;
$todo = $3;
$failed = $4;
$skipped = $5; chomp; s/\r+$//; my $class = "test result";
Hi André,
That log also shows "server: 1 failures in child process". I'm not a 100% sure but from the looks of it this is that one/1 failure mentioned in that last line:
server: 120 tests executed (1 marked as todo, 1 failure), 0 skipped.
If I'm correct it does mean that we have 2 failures and 1 todo.
(cc-ing AJ as he wrote that winetest_wait_child_process() thingy).
Hi Paul, it only occurs one failure: "server.c:1412: Test failed: RpcBindingSetAuthInfoExA failed 1747", that one happens in the child process. that is mentioned three times: server: 7 tests executed (0 marked as todo, 1 failure), 0 skipped. server: 1 failures in child process
But is this one actually a failure that is only reported in the line below and not by itself as a "Test failed: ......"?
No, its just a message(ignored by dissect) for human readers to quickly see what happened in the childprocess AFAIK
server: 120 tests executed (1 marked as todo, 1 failure), 0 skipped.
dissect adds up the two summaries, which is wrong.
Paul Vriens paul.vriens.wine@gmail.com writes:
Hi André,
That log also shows "server: 1 failures in child process". I'm not a 100% sure but from the looks of it this is that one/1 failure mentioned in that last line:
server: 120 tests executed (1 marked as todo, 1 failure), 0 skipped.
If I'm correct it does mean that we have 2 failures and 1 todo.
(cc-ing AJ as he wrote that winetest_wait_child_process() thingy).
winetest_wait_child_process will add the child failures, but I don't think it's used consistently everywhere, so that would be the first thing to fix.
On 01/05/2010 10:23 AM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Paul Vrienspaul.vriens.wine@gmail.com writes:
Hi André,
That log also shows "server: 1 failures in child process". I'm not a 100% sure but from the looks of it this is that one/1 failure mentioned in that last line:
server: 120 tests executed (1 marked as todo, 1 failure), 0 skipped.
If I'm correct it does mean that we have 2 failures and 1 todo.
(cc-ing AJ as he wrote that winetest_wait_child_process() thingy).
winetest_wait_child_process will add the child failures, but I don't think it's used consistently everywhere, so that would be the first thing to fix.
The 'adding of child failures' is needed because ok() messages from the child processes don't reach the report?
Paul Vriens paul.vriens.wine@gmail.com writes:
On 01/05/2010 10:23 AM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
winetest_wait_child_process will add the child failures, but I don't think it's used consistently everywhere, so that would be the first thing to fix.
The 'adding of child failures' is needed because ok() messages from the child processes don't reach the report?
No, it's because we want the parent to exit with a failure if a child failed.