Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-test-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 4090 invoked from network); 28 Oct 2004 21:23:36 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 28 Oct 2004 21:23:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 68078 invoked by uid 500); 28 Oct 2004 21:23:36 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-test-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 67945 invoked by uid 500); 28 Oct 2004 21:23:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact test-dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: test-dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list test-dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 67931 invoked by uid 99); 28 Oct 2004 21:23:35 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [128.143.137.19] (HELO ares.cs.Virginia.EDU) (128.143.137.19) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Thu, 28 Oct 2004 14:23:33 -0700 Received: from cobra.cs.Virginia.EDU (cobra.cs.Virginia.EDU [128.143.137.16]) by ares.cs.Virginia.EDU (8.12.10/8.12.10/UVACS-2003031900) with ESMTP id i9SLNREf014559 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2004 17:23:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 17:23:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Cliff Woolley X-X-Sender: jcw5q@cobra.cs.Virginia.EDU To: test-dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: httpd-test/perl-framework/t/security CAN-2004-0940.t In-Reply-To: <41814644.4090603@modperlcookbook.org> Message-ID: References: <20041025130414.85051.qmail@minotaur.apache.org> <41814644.4090603@modperlcookbook.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Geoffrey Young wrote: > I get the following failures on 1.3.32 but not on 1.3.33. > > t/modules/rewrite.t 22 2 9.09% 18 20 > t/security/CAN-2004-0940.t 1 1 100.00% 1 > t/security/CAN-2004-0958.t 9 2 22.22% 1 3 > > I think these are all recent additions from you. should each of these > failures be skipped unless something like > > ( have_apache(1) && have_min_apache_version(1.3.33) ) || > ( have_apache(2) && have_min_apache_version(2.0.XX) ) I don't think so -- it's detecting an actual legitimate failure. It's not that the test requires a new version to work right, it's that that particular version was broken. No sense obfuscating that fact. --Cliff