On 03/09/2024 16:43, João Távora wrote:
On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 2:20 PM Dmitry Gutov<dmi...@gutov.dev> wrote:
On 01/09/2024 17:28, Dmitry Gutov wrote:
* the rust-analyzer test you added recently -- and which you said was
very brittle -- is indeed very brittle: I cannot get it to pass. We
should fix it, or just delete it and do those rust-analyzer tests
manually each time we touch this area.
Could you give more details? It is indeed more brittle in theory, but on
my machine it's passing every time.
Yeah, I see it now - it succeeds in an interactive session and fails in
batch mode. Not sure it was the same when the patch was committed
(hopefully not).
Might be due to window configuration being different...
Yes, I was trying batch mode. make -C test eglot-tests or something
similar. Please fix it or delete it (or disable it).
Looking at minibuffer-tests.el, the above might be a solution, but it
gets me a core dump instead:
diff --git a/test/lisp/progmodes/eglot-tests.el
b/test/lisp/progmodes/eglot-tests.el
index e0168baee54..fa3b63b38dc 100644
--- a/test/lisp/progmodes/eglot-tests.el
+++ b/test/lisp/progmodes/eglot-tests.el
@@ -711,7 +711,8 @@ eglot-test-rust-completion-exit-function
(search-forward "v.count_on")
(let ((minibuffer-message-timeout 0)
;; Fail at (ding) if completion fails.
- (executing-kbd-macro t))
+ (executing-kbd-macro t)
+ (redisplay-skip-initial-frame nil))
(when (buffer-live-p "*Completions*")
(kill-buffer "*Completions*"))
;; The design is pretty brittle, we'll need to monitor the
Will follow up later if nobody beats me to it (can others reproduce the
crash?)
