GNU bug report logs - #72378
srfi-64: top-level test-group does not work

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 72378 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 72378 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: top-level test-group does not work
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 21:51:58 +0200

Hello,

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

The test-group is defined as equivalent to:

    (if (not (test-to-skip% suite-name))
      (dynamic-wind
        (lambda () (test-begin suite-name))
        (lambda () decl-or-expr ...)
        (lambda () (test-end suite-name))))

`test-to-skip%' is not defined anywhere (great), however in the text we have
this sentence:

> However, the entire group is skipped if it matched an active test-skip

Since active skip list is mandated to be a property of test runner, in case the
test runner does not exist yet, there cannot be active skip list.  Hence the
group should run.  However:

    (use-modules (srfi srfi-64))
    (test-group "x"
      #t)

Leads to:

    Backtrace:
    In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
      1752:10  6 (with-exception-handler _ _ #:unwind? _ #:unwind-for-type _)
    In unknown file:
               5 (apply-smob/0 #<thunk 7fc490169300>)
    In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
        724:2  4 (call-with-prompt _ _ #<procedure default-prompt-handler (k proc)>)
    In ice-9/eval.scm:
        619:8  3 (_ #(#(#<directory (guile-user) 7fc49016cc80>)))
    In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
       2836:4  2 (save-module-excursion _)
      4388:12  1 (_)
    In /home/wolf/src/guile-wolfsden/tests/srfi-64/test-group-top-level.srfi64test:
          8:0  0 (_)

    /home/wolf/src/guile-wolfsden/tests/srfi-64/test-group-top-level.srfi64test:8:0: In procedure struct-vtable: Wrong type argument in position 1 (expecting struct): #f

Have a nice day
Tomas Volf

Message #8 received at 72378 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Taylan Kammer <taylan.kammer <at> gmail.com>
To: Tomas Volf <~@wolfsden.cz>, 72378 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#72378: srfi-64: top-level test-group does not work
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2024 00:25:40 +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 test-group is defined as equivalent to:
>
>     (if (not (test-to-skip% suite-name))
>       (dynamic-wind
>         (lambda () (test-begin suite-name))
>         (lambda () decl-or-expr ...)
>         (lambda () (test-end suite-name))))
>
> `test-to-skip%' is not defined anywhere (great), however in the text we have
> this sentence:
>
>> However, the entire group is skipped if it matched an active test-skip
> Since active skip list is mandated to be a property of test runner, in case the
> test runner does not exist yet, there cannot be active skip list.  Hence the
> group should run.  However:
>
>     (use-modules (srfi srfi-64))
>     (test-group "x"
>       #t)
>
> Leads to:
>
>     Backtrace:
>     In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
>       1752:10  6 (with-exception-handler _ _ #:unwind? _ #:unwind-for-type _)
>     In unknown file:
>                5 (apply-smob/0 #<thunk 7fc490169300>)
>     In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
>         724:2  4 (call-with-prompt _ _ #<procedure default-prompt-handler (k proc)>)
>     In ice-9/eval.scm:
>         619:8  3 (_ #(#(#<directory (guile-user) 7fc49016cc80>)))
>     In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
>        2836:4  2 (save-module-excursion _)
>       4388:12  1 (_)
>     In /home/wolf/src/guile-wolfsden/tests/srfi-64/test-group-top-level.srfi64test:
>           8:0  0 (_)
>
>     /home/wolf/src/guile-wolfsden/tests/srfi-64/test-group-top-level.srfi64test:8:0: In procedure struct-vtable: Wrong type argument in position 1 (expecting struct): #f
>
> Have a nice day
> Tomas Volf
>
>
I don't know how to fix this in the reference implementation that Guile uses, and don't care to find out because (as you seem to have noticed) the implementation is somewhat over-complicated in many parts.

But in any case, my implementation isn't affected by this bug, and your example works as intended with it.

- Taylan

Previous Next

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