Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Message-ID: <409EBC5B.80207@modperlcookbook.org>
Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 19:18:51 -0400
From: Geoffrey Young <geoff@modperlcookbook.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040124
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@httpd.apache.org, test-dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Apache 1.3.31 RC Tarballs available
References: <66ABDF44-A039-11D8-94C8-000393D76AB8@jaguNET.com>
 <20040507191045.GA24683@raider.norlug.org>
 <24BEEB6F-A10E-11D8-BEA9-000393105F60@temme.net>
In-Reply-To: <24BEEB6F-A10E-11D8-BEA9-000393105F60@temme.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


cross-posting to test-dev@, which is probably where we ought to discuss the
gory details...

> Failed Test              Stat Wstat Total Fail  Failed  List of Failed
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

at this point the test part of the perl-framework is largely unmaintained.
a few months ago I tried to stir up some interest in cleaning it up:

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=apache-test-dev&m=107091289914815&w=2

some of the issues there were fixed by myself and others, but a few remain
outstanding.

> t/apache/contentlength.t               20    7  35.00%  2 6 10 14 16 18  20
> t/modules/autoindex2.t                  3    2  66.67%  1 3

these (or a subset thereof) have been failing at least since that email, but
I just haven't gotten around to looking at them yet.

>  (1 subtest UNEXPECTEDLY SUCCEEDED)

IIRC this is from t/apache/include?  I suspect this is due to some
backported changes that were never updated in the test suite by andre or
myself.  I'll look at that this week unless andre beats me to it.

> t/apache/errordoc.t         2   512    14   14 100.00%  1-14

I added that test recently and it passes for me on fedora.  can you try

$ t/TEST t/apache/errordoc.t -v

and send that along (along with any relevant error_log messages).  that all
tests fail probably mean that it's not picking up on a required
configuration thingy.

> t/modules/cgi.t                        46    4   8.70%  5-6 13-14

this just hangs for me, but there were some changes introduced recently that
may account for this - without looking at the change log it something about
STDERR IIRC.

> t/modules/expires.t                    92    4   4.35%  13 21 33 45

fails for me as well.

it would be great to have the tests at 100% for current 1.3, 2.0, and 2.1.
if we can get it to that point I volunteer to be the project watchdog who
will pipe up if some commit causes the framework to suddenly fail (at least
on the platform I run, currently fedora).  but until we get to 100% the
framework is kinda useless for RC testing as far as I'm concerned - "known
failures" don't really mean much for this kind of thing.

--Geoff