GNU bug report logs - #51037
[PATCH] Make `print-level` & `print-length` customizable in ERT batch tests

Previous Next

Full log

Message #126 received at 51037 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Michael <sp1ff <at> pobox.com>
To: Filipp Gunbin <fgunbin <at> fastmail.fm>
Cc: gazally <at> runbox.com, Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>,
 Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 51037 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#51037: [PATCH] Make `print-level` & `print-length`
 customizable in ERT batch tests
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2021 08:49:05 -0800

> On 19/11/2021 07:24 -0800, Michael wrote:
>
>> Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org> writes:
>>
>>> Filipp Gunbin <fgunbin <at> fastmail.fm> writes:
>>>
>>>> The docstring for backtrace-line-length says: "If set to nil 
>>>> or
>>>> zero,
>>>> backtrace mode will not abbreviate the forms it prints."  So 
>>>> the
>>>> above
>>>> sentence, which I removed, was indeed not true?  (a quick 
>>>> look over
>>>> its usages confirmed that to me, but I'd like someone else to
>>>> check)
>>>
>>> I think the intention is that a nil value of 
>>> backtrace-line-length
>>> shouldn't limit the lengths -- but I haven't tested it. 
>>> Doesn't it
>>> work?
>>
>> Yes, I'm a bit lost, Filipp... what is your concern? And I
>> thought I *had* tested that.
>
> That the docstring contained a sentence which is not true.  A 
> minor
> issue, of course.  I give examples here:
> https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=51037#117
>
> (there was also fix of interactive spec of 
> `ert-run-tests-interactively',
> but that's obvious I think)
>
Hey Filipp,

Note that _is_ true, as far as I know, and was intended to be
true before my patch, and I verified that it became true with my
patch :) Can you provide a test case that demonstrates it to be
not true?

-- 
Michael <sp1ff <at> pobox.com>

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.