On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> On 11.02.2015 20:07, Branko Čibej wrote: > > On 11.02.2015 20:03, Philip Martin wrote: > >> Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> writes: > >> > >>> I'm seeing this in the logs on the svn-x64-macosx-bdb builder on trunk: > >>> > >>> $ cat fails.log > >>> [[[ > >>> XPASS: fs-test 44: test reopen and modify txn [[WIMP: txn_dir_cache > fail in FSFS]] > >>> ]]] > >>> > >>> > >>> Philip, I think that's your pigeon; can you please check if this is a > >>> fluke, or if we can remove the XFAIL/Work-In-Progress tags from this > >>> test case? > >> The test shows a bug in FSFS, on that backend the test will XFAIL. > >> There is no corresponding bug in BDB of FSX so there the test is an > >> XPASS. XPASS/WIMP appears to be the best way to describe a C test that > >> behaves that way. I suppose XFAIL/WIMP might also work. I don't think > >> there is an easy way to mark a C test as PASS on some backends and FAIL > >> on others. > > You're right, there's not. OK, as long as this is expected, fine. > > > > Of course, we can always invent new predicate macros for the C tests ... > > I'll see if I can come up with an FS-type-aware predicate. > > > r1659101 introduces run-time predicates to the test suite > infrastructure. We used to have only compile-time conditions, and that's > clearly not enough to test the FS type, which is a run-time property. > That test now is now marked as XFAIL, unless the FS type is not FSFS, in > which case it's a PASS. > I was about trying to return SVN_ERR_TEST_SKIPPED as a stop-gap. But you solution is clearly better. -- Stefan^2.
