Karl Fogel wrote:
>
> Philip Martin <philip@codematters.co.uk> writes:
> > The following patch makes the regression tests raise an error if a
> > process started by run_command crashes. This results in better error
> > checking on Unix, a command that crashes will be detected
> > automatically rather than relying on the crash being detected by the
> > absence of some effect. The disadvantage is that if a test is written
> > that relies on this new behaviour then it may not be effective on
> > Windows, it may pass when it should fail.
> >
> > So, is this a good idea?
>
> Because of the concerns you mentioned, I think it's probably not a
> good idea. As annoying as it is, we just need to write our tests to
> notice the lack of output (or other external symptom) of a crash
> program, instead of noticing the crash itself. Otherwise, people
> developing on Unix would be tempted to write tests depending on the
> behavior, and those tests would be no good on other platforms.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I can't see when a crash would ever be the expected behaviour. Well, only in an XFAIL test (which is presumably a temporary measure), and in that case the worst I can imagine happening is that people see XFAIL tests passing on Windows and get confused about whether the corresponding bugs have actually been fixed.
- Julian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Apr 8 14:02:32 2003