perl-test-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geoffrey Young <ge...@modperlcookbook.org>
Subject Re: Got it! (D::C - Apache::TestMB probs)
Date Sun, 25 Sep 2005 23:38:25 GMT


Hilary Holz wrote:
> Hi Geoff,
> 
> I found the problem with Apache::TestMB that was causing the unstable
> behavior I was seeing with D::C results (actually, I found several related
> problems...)

cool.

> 
> I didn't know if this should go to you or to David Wheeler - I thought I'd
> run it by you as I haven't done this sort of thing before and you and I had
> been talking.

I'm CC'ing here the appropriate places.  if you could please resend the
patch to the list that would be great.  we greatly prefer unified diffs
directly against svn

  $ svn diff

but if that doesn't work for you

  $ diff -u ...

is better than just plain diff, especially a diff that doesn't list the
relevant files :)

> 
> Anyway, there are three distinct changes (annotated as patch 1, patch 2 and
> patch 3 in my comments in the patch, appended to this email.)
> 
>  - Patch 1 was the easiest to diagnose - without it the cover_db is not
> deleted when running ./Build testcover repeatedly (you can just check file
> mod times to see.)

ok.  we do in MakeMaker land, so that's probably an oversight in M::B land.

> 
>  - I've attached a minimal test case that shows the effect of patch 3, where
> the minimal test case is an extension of the one you have, translated into
> Module::Build and expanded a bit to show the problem. Just build and run
> ./Build test, and you'll see it doesn't descend, but with the patch it does.

if you say so :)  I'll assume this is MB::Specific.

> 
>  - I haven't been able to construct a minimal test case for patch 2 - the
> effects show in the distribution we're developing in the lab, in fact, this
> patch is what actually fixes the unstable D::C results. I'm hoping that
> isn't a problem, as the patch brings A::TestMB into line with the way A::T
> works under MakeMaker, so you might have a minimal test case? The patch
> invokes test with APACHE_TEST_EXTRA_ARGS set to -one-process (without the
> patch the variable is set but not used.)

ok.  we added APACHE_TEST_EXTRA_ARGS as a way to add signals specifically
through make, so I doubt anyone used or tested it under M::B.

separarely, as I mentioned before D::C + mod_perl segfaults for me maybe 50%
of the time, but I always write that off to the unusual stuff I'm trying to
cover and just how twisted both tools happen to be.

> 
> Of course, none of this fixes the problem with the select/ignores not being
> processed :-/ as you suspected. Any thoughts on that one? I'll keep poking
> away at it in the background, but I haven't had any luck so far.

well, I'm not really sure about them being ignored.  but as I said before,
I'd like to see if using MakeMaker makes a difference to you, since MM
behaves just fine for me.  if there is a difference between MM and M::B for
you then at least we know to look at gaps, whereas if MM misbehaves that's a
different issue.

--Geoff

Mime
View raw message