Re: [PATCH] {test-protocols} parallel-tests: fix bug in Automake's own testsuite

[Stefano Lattarini]

On Wednesday 22 June 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 09:52:13PM CEST:
> > The first bugfix in the new branch.  Luckily, the bug (detailedly
> > described in the ChangeLog entry) is only in the Automake's own
> > testsuite, not in the implementation.
> 
> You could halven the length of the log entry without loss of
> information.
>
I guess so; but the real problem is that my ChangeLog entry has too much
repetition, which makes it unclear if not downright confusing.  I'll try
to fix this before pushing (suggestions welcome, as usual).

> Also, have you thought about a quoting mechanism so that test authors do
> not have to think about breaking the test driver mechanism accidentally?
> That would seem more robust to me.
>
I don't understand.  A quoting mechanism for own our testsuite is already
offered by the new `dump_log_files' function (and the new maintainer
checks try to unsure that this function is used when required).  OTOH,
the authors of third-party test drivers *must* allow the direct writing
of `:test-result:' directives in the driver output -- this is the only
way to declare test results that are understood and accounted for by the
new Automake test harness.

> Also, most of your uses of "useless" are actually superfluous: either
> you go on to explain why something is not actually useless after all
> (in which case there seems no point in calling it useless in the first
> place), or it is useless, in which case why have it?
>
What about "extra quotes" instead?  I'll use that if you don't object.

> No time for more detailed review in the short span allowed for feedback.
> Why BTW?
>
Because without this patch I'm experiencing spurious failures in the
testsuite.  OK, I can visually scan the output of "make check" and
see that there is no unexpected "foo.test: FAIL" line in there, and
thus conclude that the failure is really only spurious.  But this is
cumbersome to say the least, and surely error-prone.

> You can always git rebase later, and it's not like this is
> security relevant
>
This is true.

> or needs to be rolled out this week.
>
I disagree: Ggven what I said above, I'd rather apply the patch today
(I'll wait until this evening or tomorrow morning though, to give you
enough time to answer).

Regards,
  Stefano