Re: [lmi] PATCH: Switch to using std::filesystem

[Vadim Zeitlin]

On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 12:17:49 +0000 Greg Chicares <gchicares@sbcglobal.net> 
wrote:

GC> On 4/26/21 9:53 PM, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
GC> > 
GC> >  The branch "std-fs" of https://github.com/vadz/lmi.git repository
GC> I get the following unit-test error for both msw builds:
GC> 
GC> Running path_utility_test:
GC> 
GC> ???? test failed:   '...-20210428T115328Z.' == '....'
GC> [file /opt/lmi/src/lmi/path_utility_test.cpp, line 302]
GC> 
GC> ???? 1 test errors detected; 64 tests succeeded

 Very curious. Is this using Wine and, if so, which version? It must be
Debian Wine 5.0.3, right? In any case, it must be different from
wine-stable_6.0.0~focal-1_amd64.deb used by the CI builds because the test
does pass there.

 Under native MSW I get 

        % ./path_utility_test.exe -a

        .... 65 tests succeeded

        !!!! no errors detected

GC> This affects unit tests with or without the "safe" standard library.

 I admit I didn't try with the safe standard library, but I don't see how
could it affect this.

GC> Are we using exactly the same compiler? I have:
GC> 
GC> /opt/lmi/src/lmi[0]$i686-w64-mingw32-gcc --version
GC> i686-w64-mingw32-gcc (GCC) 10-win32 20210110

 Yes, I'm using the same one (which is still the latest available in Debian
Sid).

 I strongly suspect it's a bug in Wine, but it's not really clear to me
what should we do even if we confirm that this is the case: we don't want
to "fix" the test for Wine if it means breaking it for native MSW and we
don't want to just disable this test for Wine entirely, as this is what is
used in the CI builds (we could have a CI build running under native MSW
too, but this would require another effort... it would probably be simpler
to have a separate workflow taking the binaries produced by this build and
running the tests under native MSW, I wonder if I should do this).

 Would you consider adding https://dl.winehq.org/wine-builds/debian/ to
your list of repositories (like .github/workflows/ci.yml does for Ubuntu)
and use the version from there, rather than from Debian? Because I think
(and can test it to confirm) that using the latest version should fix this
problem.

 Please let me know,
VZ

pgpju3tkgsirU.pgp
Description: PGP signature