Eli Zaretskii writes: Hi, >> From: Laurence Warne >> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 22:03:49 +0000 >> Cc: Peter Oliver , 76549@debbugs.gnu.org >> >> Hi, I don't seem to be able to see the ERT explainer output in the logs added in >> https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=73441 for proced-refine-test. >> >> Has that patch been applied here or am I missing it? If not it would possibly explain the flakiness fixed by >> that patch too. > > Which patch are you referring to? Bug#73441 has more than one. I don't believe this belongs to Bug#73441. Patches there have added an ert explainer, which isn't triggered here. And FWIW, proced-tests.el is the same in the meacs-30 and master branches. The backtrace Peter has provided us is --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- Test proced-refine-test backtrace: proced-<(nil 88.88888888888889) proced-update() proced-refine() #f(compiled-function () #)() #f(compiled-function () #)() handler-bind-1(#f(compiled-function () # ert--run-test-internal(#s(ert--test-execution-info :test #s(ert-test ert-run-test(#s(ert-test :name proced-refine-test :documentation nil ert-run-or-rerun-test(#s(ert--stats :selector ... :tests ... :test-m ert-run-tests((not (or (tag :expensive-test) (tag :unstable))) #f(co ert-run-tests-batch((not (or (tag :expensive-test) (tag :unstable))) ert-run-tests-batch-and-exit((not (or (tag :expensive-test) (tag :un eval((ert-run-tests-batch-and-exit '(not (or (tag :expensive-test) ( command-line-1(("-L" ":." "-l" "ert" "--eval" "(setq treesit-extra-l command-line() normal-top-level() Test proced-refine-test condition: (wrong-type-argument number-or-marker-p nil) FAILED 3/6 proced-refine-test (0.083490 sec) at lisp/proced-tests.el:117 passed 4/6 proced-refine-with-update-test (0.089915 sec) passed 5/6 proced-revert-test (0.101340 sec) passed 6/6 proced-update-test (0.071953 sec) Ran 6 tests, 5 results as expected, 1 unexpected (2025-02-24 22:08:35+0000, 0.735331 sec) 1 unexpected results: FAILED proced-refine-test --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- The error has appeared in proced-refine, before any ert-specific macro, carrying the explainer, could run. Likely, we must improve proced-<. If either NUM1 or NUM2 is not a number, this shouldn't raise an arror. Peter, are you able to reproduce the problem? Does the appended patch help? Best regards, Michael.