GNU bug report logs - #72370
srfi-64: test-apply requires at least one specifier

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 72370 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 72370 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Tomas Volf <~@wolfsden.cz>
To: bug-guile <at> gnu.org
Subject: srfi-64: test-apply requires at least one specifier
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 21:51:55 +0200

Hello,

I think I found a bug in (srfi srfi-64) module shipped with GNU Guile.

The specification says the following regarding the test-apply:

> If one or more specifiers are listed then only tests matching the specifiers
> are executed.

That implies that specifiers are optional and the following code should work:

    (use-modules (srfi srfi-64))
    (test-apply (λ () #t))

However it does not:

    Backtrace:
    In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
      1752:10  8 (with-exception-handler _ _ #:unwind? _ #:unwind-for-type _)
    In unknown file:
               7 (apply-smob/0 #<thunk 7fdf6ecc4300>)
    In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
        724:2  6 (call-with-prompt _ _ #<procedure default-prompt-handler (k proc)>)
    In ice-9/eval.scm:
        619:8  5 (_ #(#(#<directory (guile-user) 7fdf6ecc7c80>)))
    In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
       2836:4  4 (save-module-excursion _)
      4388:12  3 (_)
    In srfi/srfi-64/testing.scm:
       947:34  2 (test-apply #<procedure 7fdf63956108 at /home/wolf/src/guile-wolfsden/tests/s…>)
       938:47  1 (test-apply #<procedure 7fdf63956108 at /home/wolf/src/guile-wolfsden/test…> . _)
    In unknown file:
               0 (reverse #t)

    ERROR: In procedure reverse:
    In procedure reverse: Wrong type argument in position 1: #t

Have a nice day
Tomas Volf

Message #8 received at 72370 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Taylan Kammer <taylan.kammer <at> gmail.com>
To: Tomas Volf <~@wolfsden.cz>, 72370 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#72370: srfi-64: test-apply requires at least one specifier
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 20:50:48 +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 regarding the test-apply:
>
>> If one or more specifiers are listed then only tests matching the specifiers
>> are executed.
> That implies that specifiers are optional and the following code should work:
>
>     (use-modules (srfi srfi-64))
>     (test-apply (λ () #t))
>
> However it does not:
>
>     Backtrace:
>     In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
>       1752:10  8 (with-exception-handler _ _ #:unwind? _ #:unwind-for-type _)
>     In unknown file:
>                7 (apply-smob/0 #<thunk 7fdf6ecc4300>)
>     In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
>         724:2  6 (call-with-prompt _ _ #<procedure default-prompt-handler (k proc)>)
>     In ice-9/eval.scm:
>         619:8  5 (_ #(#(#<directory (guile-user) 7fdf6ecc7c80>)))
>     In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
>        2836:4  4 (save-module-excursion _)
>       4388:12  3 (_)
>     In srfi/srfi-64/testing.scm:
>        947:34  2 (test-apply #<procedure 7fdf63956108 at /home/wolf/src/guile-wolfsden/tests/s…>)
>        938:47  1 (test-apply #<procedure 7fdf63956108 at /home/wolf/src/guile-wolfsden/test…> . _)
>     In unknown file:
>                0 (reverse #t)
>
>     ERROR: In procedure reverse:
>     In procedure reverse: Wrong type argument in position 1: #t
>
> Have a nice day
> Tomas Volf

If anyone's wondering why I don't want to work with the upstream SRFI-64 code, reading the implementation of test-apply is all you need. :-)

It almost makes me think it must be machine-generated code, or intentionally obfuscated. But anyway.

My implementation actually had a similar bug, but it should be fixed now with this commit:

    https://codeberg.org/taylan/scheme-srfis/commit/3091e3b863d53a012b4be4376814bb67bf09020d

I've also noticed the other issue with test-apply that you reported as a separate bug report, and will fix that later.

Thanks a ton for all these reports, because it seems you've really caught a ton of edge-cases, and some glaring issues in seldom-used parts of the API.

- Taylan

Message #11 received at 72370 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Taylan Kammer <taylan.kammer <at> gmail.com>
To: Tomas Volf <~@wolfsden.cz>, 72370 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#72370: srfi-64: test-apply requires at least one specifier
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2024 01:16:17 +0200

On 30.09.2024 20:50, Taylan Kammer wrote:
> 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 regarding the test-apply:
>>
>>> If one or more specifiers are listed then only tests matching the specifiers
>>> are executed.
>> That implies that specifiers are optional and the following code should work:
>>
>>     (use-modules (srfi srfi-64))
>>     (test-apply (λ () #t))
>>
>> However it does not:
>>
>>     Backtrace:
>>     In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
>>       1752:10  8 (with-exception-handler _ _ #:unwind? _ #:unwind-for-type _)
>>     In unknown file:
>>                7 (apply-smob/0 #<thunk 7fdf6ecc4300>)
>>     In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
>>         724:2  6 (call-with-prompt _ _ #<procedure default-prompt-handler (k proc)>)
>>     In ice-9/eval.scm:
>>         619:8  5 (_ #(#(#<directory (guile-user) 7fdf6ecc7c80>)))
>>     In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
>>        2836:4  4 (save-module-excursion _)
>>       4388:12  3 (_)
>>     In srfi/srfi-64/testing.scm:
>>        947:34  2 (test-apply #<procedure 7fdf63956108 at /home/wolf/src/guile-wolfsden/tests/s…>)
>>        938:47  1 (test-apply #<procedure 7fdf63956108 at /home/wolf/src/guile-wolfsden/test…> . _)
>>     In unknown file:
>>                0 (reverse #t)
>>
>>     ERROR: In procedure reverse:
>>     In procedure reverse: Wrong type argument in position 1: #t
>>
>> Have a nice day
>> Tomas Volf
> If anyone's wondering why I don't want to work with the upstream SRFI-64 code, reading the implementation of test-apply is all you need. :-)
>
> It almost makes me think it must be machine-generated code, or intentionally obfuscated. But anyway.
>
> My implementation actually had a similar bug, but it should be fixed now with this commit:
>
>     https://codeberg.org/taylan/scheme-srfis/commit/3091e3b863d53a012b4be4376814bb67bf09020d
>
> I've also noticed the other issue with test-apply that you reported as a separate bug report, and will fix that later.
>
> Thanks a ton for all these reports, because it seems you've really caught a ton of edge-cases, and some glaring issues in seldom-used parts of the API.
>
> - Taylan
>
By the way, I just noticed another issue with test-apply:

It will sometimes call the supplied test runner's on-final handler, and sometimes not.

I had made sure to imitate the behavior one-to-one in my own SRFI-64 implementation, but looking at the code one more time and pondering on the behavior a bit, this seems rather arbitrary and most likely not intended.

So, I've changed it in my implementation so that the on-final handler will always be called at the end when using test-apply. Fix is implemented with this commit:

    https://codeberg.org/taylan/scheme-srfis/commit/a33b9f0cd4558d255605eccfa1a59111b8eb3716

- Taylan

Previous Next

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