Patrice Dumas wrote:
> All in all, this is already unhoped-for that we can manage to have most
> of the tests passing on such a broken platform!

I agree. *Only* 6 failures on mingw is an achievement!

> Those errors are expected.

Would you mind marking them as expected failures? This would have the effect
that occasional testers like me don't report these failures again, and that
the CI on mingw does not count them as failures either. It goes like this:

1) Import the module 'test-xfail' from Gnulib.

2) Add these lines to tp/tests/Makefile.am or tp/tests/Makefile.onetst:

# Expected test failures.
XFAIL_TESTS =
if OS_IS_NATIVE_WINDOWS
XFAIL_TESTS += \
  test_scripts/formatting_split_nocopying_split_dev_null.sh \
  test_scripts/formatting_cpp_lines.sh \
  test_scripts/formatting_js_license_reuse_output_file.sh \
  test_scripts/formatting_reuse_macro_expand_file.sh \
  test_scripts/encoded_verbatiminclude_names_latin1_html_explicit_encoding.sh \
  test_scripts/encoded_verbatiminclude_names_latin1_explicit_encoding_rawtext.sh
endif


Bruno




  • Texi... Gavin Smith
    • ... Bruno Haible via Bug reports for the GNU Texinfo documentation system
      • ... Gavin Smith
        • ... Gavin Smith
        • ... Gavin Smith
    • ... Bruno Haible via Bug reports for the GNU Texinfo documentation system
      • ... Patrice Dumas
        • ... Bruno Haible via Bug reports for the GNU Texinfo documentation system
          • ... Patrice Dumas
          • ... Eli Zaretskii
            • ... Gavin Smith
              • ... pertusus
              • ... Eli Zaretskii
                • ... Bruno Haible via Bug reports for the GNU Texinfo documentation system
                • ... Eli Zaretskii
                • ... Bruno Haible via Bug reports for the GNU Texinfo documentation system
                • ... Eli Zaretskii
      • ... Eli Zaretskii

Reply via email to