On Sun, 15 Jun 2025, Jon Turney wrote: > On 14/06/2025 06:14, Jeremy Drake wrote: > > On Fri, 13 Jun 2025, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-developers wrote: > > > > > I got permission denied trying to push to a new branch. > > You have been granted additional permissions which should allow you to push > now.
Thanks. Don't know now if I'll use it right away... ;) I could add a regression test for cygwin_create_path /dev/sda > > > I'm working on posix_spawn tests on github, since that's where the actions > > > would run, and also locally and on Linux. > > > > > > https://github.com/jeremyd2019/cygwin-stc/compare/main...refs/heads/posix-spawn > > > > Oh, also let me know if you think this sort of test belongs somewhere else > > (maybe winsup/testsuite? though I don't know how it would work out there) > > I don't know. > > I'm not a huge fan of the clever tricks which winsup/testsuite does to run > against the just-built cygwin, but they do work. > > (Ofc, when they break, we usually end up silently running the tests against > the installed cygwin instead, which we could probably do with a guard against) > > There's some pain relying on anything else being available (currently we jump > through some hoops to provide busybox 'sh' and 'sleep' which are used by some > of the LTP tests...) > > > The advantage of stc setup is that we can build with headers from, and link > against, the cygwin we're testing against; and install anything else from the > distro. > > > So I guess pick whichever seems most appropriate to you :) I think the winapi/testsuite actually makes more sense, these are not regression tests or simple test cases, but an attempt to pretty exhaustively exercise an API to *avoid* accidentally introducing regressions. It will require me to retool the tests I wrote so far, splitting into a bunch of small test .c files and invoking /proc/self/exe with an argument that tells the child that it's the child so it does whatever simple thing I was invoking env, readlink, or grep to do in the tests I wrote so far.