Re: [Boost-testing] broken reporting of failure expectations

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-09 08:10:19

Aleksey Gurtovoy <agurtovoy_at_[hidden]> writes:

> David Abrahams writes:
>> David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>
>>>> Whatever the consensus is going to be, in the short term explicit
>>>> entries are the way to go.
>>>
>>> Okay, I'll fix those up.
>>
>> Well, I did it, but I'm not really sure what I'm doing.  For one
>> thing, none of the expected failures in the iterators library seem to
>> show what the actual error was.  For example,
>> http://tinyurl.com/936ec.
>
> Do you mean the actual compilation error? There shouldn't be one,
> since it's a "compile-fail" test.

Oh, duh.  Sorry.

>> For another, there are a number of toolsets in the report, such as
>> "gcc" and "mingw," whose version numbers are hard or impossible to
>> determine. 
>
> Yes, and these need to be renamed. As it has been numerously stated
> here, having a toolset name conforming to our standard naming
> conventions
> (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.testing/1321) is
> essential to being able to mark up things properly.
>
> Beman, Martin, Toon, could you please address this issue for the
> toolsets you are testing with? (Please see
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.testing/877 for the
> instructions).
>
>> I can't really tell that the failure was what I expected.
>> So I may have silenced quite a few dark green squares, but I'm not
>> sure that what I did was meaningful.
>
> Did you check it in? The markup in the CVS still uses '<toolset
> name="*"/>'.

I guess I probably didn't; let me look.

OK, handled now, thanks.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com