[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: 1.5.1 up for signing/testing

From: David Glasser <glasser_at_davidglasser.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:40:33 -0700

On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 10:32 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
> David Glasser wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 6:10 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Branko Čibej wrote:
>>>>
>>>> C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It was just brought to my attention that I *should* have seen serf
>>>>> tests
>>>>> failing.
>>>>
>>>> Can someone please remind me why those two serf tests aren't XFAIL?
>>>
>>> Because the tests can't reliably know which of the two WebDAV modules is
>>> being used?
>>
>> Sure it can; it can check svntest.main.http_library.
>>
>> Now, sure, you're only "required" to pass --http-library
>> ($HTTP_LIBRARY) to the test suite if you've built with both libraries,
>> but we can change that requirement. (Or it can just parse 'svn
>> --version'.)
>
> Right. So, no, it cannot reliably work today to simply mark those test as
> XFAIL based on some readily-available conditional evaluation. But yes,
> there are things we can do to our testing framework to make this possible.

I mean, the "thing" we do is add a line to the README which says "when
testing with serf, set the HTTP_LIBRARY variable (if running with make
check) or pass --http-library (if running directly)".

--dave

-- 
David Glasser | glasser@davidglasser.net | http://www.davidglasser.net/
Received on 2008-07-25 17:40:51 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.