From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-18 20:17:31
"Phil Richards" <news_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Thought I would try and track down the reason for the "Fail" being
> shown in the HTML regression report generated by compiler_status.
> (Is there a better mailing list/forum for reporting problems
> with these tools?)
> The following logic is used to determine whether a test passed or failed:
> xml::element_ptr dbp = xml::parse( file, pth.string() );
> const xml::element & db( *dbp );
> const xml::element & run_element( find_element( db, "run" ) );
> pass = !run_element.name.empty()
> && attribute_value( run_element, "result" ) != "fail";
> So, for a test to be shown as "Pass", !run_element.name.empty() must be
> true - which requires that the XML test result blob contains a "run"
> element. Tests which are aimed purely at testing expected compile-time
> fails (e.g., function/function_30) get the following XML generated
> by process_jam_log:
> <test-log library="function"
> <compile result="succeed" timestamp="2005-06-17 10:25:10 UTC">
> So, the test passed, but compiler_status will show a fail due to the
> lack of a "run" element.
> The "pass" assignment should take account of the "test-type".
> (I can put a patch together, but I might not cover all the cases
> since I don't know the system too well yet.)
I've recently added better test case coverage for compiler_status.cpp, but
still no compile-fail test:-(
I'll add a case for compile-fail. Assuming it shows the failure you report
above, then I'll take a look at your proposed patch. May be a couple of days
before I get to it.
Thanks for helping,
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk