GNU bug report logs - #72369
srfi-64: test-end fails to signal an error with null runner

Previous Next

Package: guile;

Reported by: Tomas Volf <~@wolfsden.cz>

Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 19:53:05 UTC

Severity: normal

Done: Tomas Volf <~@wolfsden.cz>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


Message #8 received at 72369 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Taylan Kammer <taylan.kammer <at> gmail.com>
To: Tomas Volf <~@wolfsden.cz>, 72369 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#72369: srfi-64: test-end fails to signal an error with null
 runner
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 18:22:32 +0200
On 30.07.2024 21:51, Tomas Volf wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I think I found a bug in (srfi srfi-64) module shipped with GNU Guile.
>
> The specification says the following about the test-end:
>
>> An error is reported if the suite-name does not match the current test group
>> name.
> Thus the following should signal an error:
>
>     (use-modules (srfi srfi-64))
>     (let ((r (test-runner-null)))
>       (test-runner-current r)
>       (test-begin "x")
>       (test-end   "y"))
>
> However it does not.
>
> Have a nice day
> Tomas Volf

This would be easy to change, but the on-bad-end-name handler would be kind of useless if test-end was hardcoded to always raise an error. I think the intended meaning of the spec is that the default/simple test runner reports an error in this case (by implementing the on-bad-end-name handler) but not test-end itself.

One could argue that "reporting" an error is not the same thing as signaling/raising one. We could make test-end always print something to stderr, but not actually raise an error, so it technically fulfills the spec's promise that it "reports" an error, but the usefulness of this is unclear to me.

Opinions welcome.

- Taylan





This bug report was last modified 299 days ago.

Previous Next


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