Hello Ron, if not i am still missing something, actuall i *fear* that there are places in the engine that do not adhere to the new semantics. If you spot one please inform me, prefereable by writing a test case. If you don't feel able too just let me know what you think is wrong.
best regards marcus Friday, May 12, 2006, 1:12:44 PM, you wrote: > Marcus, > Zend: __toString() Done (marcus) > Does this mean that finally __toString acts like the whole world would want > it to? Can it finally be true? :) > Ron > "Marcus Boerger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in bericht > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Hello internals, >> >> i am now done with most bigger parts of 5.2 Todo and the remainder >> is a bunch of fixes engine wise some folks already found during the >> MFH phase. Right now my test results look like (see below). Whilethis >> looks quite good on the first glance it is actually a big problem that >> only have around 2500 tests for a beast as big as PHP. >> >> A thing i am personally wondering about is that som many people >> complained about interruptions on this development tree. Actually i >> tried all i could to keep this interruptions as low as possible. For >> example besides windows all built-in stuff was at least always >> compilable. The biggest problems extension wise where two things. >> First finding all cases of overloaded iterators since their API has >> chnaged. This is a problem since the function pointers hide behind >> tables and conversons, so i could not grep for them. The other major >> issue was that for PDO we planned to MFH a bunch of stuff from HEAD >> while unfortunatley PDO's HEAD is completley out of synch with separate >> development in 5.1/5.2. Thus taking care of PDO had to wait until >> the rest had settled down. Now the real question is if ppl see the >> 5.2 already as something that goes for production quality or if >> suddenly windows became a major developmment platform without me >> noticing it. In the first case it is my bad, because i got our time >> line wrong. In the second case it is still my bad, but just tell me >> now so i can kick my windows compiler next tiem i do bigger changes. >> Anyways sorry if you feel the interruptions have been too annoying. >> >> Back on the first topic: tests. While i was still happily MFHing >> people complained about a newly detected behavior change that nobody >> detected in HEAD so far, see Zend/tests/objects_001.phpt. I never >> intended to change that behavior. It was simply a sideeffect of MFHing >> new stuff and obviously we have to fix the behavior in both HEAD >> and 5.2. Anyways i ask everybody to write more tests so that we can >> figure out such things earlier in the future, hopefully already before >> committing since everybody should do make test before commit anyways. >> >> Last but not least i ask to provide tests for stuff we do not cover >> right now. In case you are an extension developer you can most easily >> go to http://gcov.php.net and check your extensions for not executed >> c code. As the developer you will know how to provide a test for the >> identified areas. >> >> One good idea came up already. That is we could extend the run-tests >> facility to handle multiple php versions per .phpt script. That way >> we can keep track of behavior changes easily. This would for example >> be done by extending the current block identifier by a version compare >> string. E.g. right now expected output is identified by "--EXPECT--". >> With the version identifier it would look like: "--[>=5.2]:EXPECT--" >> and "--[<5.2]:EXPECT--". >> >> Once again sorry if you felt the interruptions too annoying. >> >> best regards >> marcus >> >> p.s.: todo can be found here: http://oss.backendmedia.com/PhP52 >> >> >> TEST RESULT SUMMARY >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Exts skipped : 21 >> Exts tested : 68 >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Number of tests : 2591 2251 >> Tests skipped : 340 ( 13.1%) -------- >> Tests warned : 0 ( 0.0%) ( 0.0%) >> Tests failed : 19 ( 0.7%) ( 0.8%) >> Tests passed : 2232 ( 86.1%) ( 99.2%) >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Time taken : 569 seconds >> ===================================================================== >> >> ===================================================================== >> FAILED TEST SUMMARY >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> comparing objects to other types [Zend/tests/objects_001.phpt] >> APC: apc_store/fetch with strings [ext/apc/tests/apc_001.phpt] >> APC: apc_store/fetch with objects [ext/apc/tests/apc_002.phpt] >> APC: apc_store/fetch with objects [ext/apc/tests/apc_003.phpt] >> Test 1: Accessing single node [ext/dom/tests/dom001.phpt] >> Test 2: getElementsByTagName() / getElementsByTagNameNS() >> [ext/dom/tests/dom002.phpt] >> Test 7: DTD tests [ext/dom/tests/dom007.phpt] >> iconv stream filter [ext/iconv/tests/iconv_stream_filter.phpt] >> mb_strlen() [ext/mbstring/tests/mb_strlen.phpt] >> mysqli fetch float values [ext/mysqli/tests/010.phpt] >> mysqli fetch mixed values [ext/mysqli/tests/011.phpt] >> mysqli fetch mixed values 2 [ext/mysqli/tests/012.phpt] >> mysqli_bind_result (SHOW) [ext/mysqli/tests/045.phpt] >> PDO PgSQL Large Objects [ext/pdo_pgsql/tests/large_objects.phpt] >> Bug #31422 No Error-Logging on SoapServer-Side >> [ext/soap/tests/bugs/bug31422.phpt] >> Test array_diff and array_diff_assoc behaviour >> [ext/standard/tests/array/007.phpt] >> Test of the *intersect* bunch of functions (both assoc and non-assoc) >> [ext/standard/tests/array/array_intersect_1.phpt] >> date_sunrise() and date_sunset() functions >> [ext/standard/tests/general_functions/sunfuncts.phpt] >> Bug #22224 (implode changes object references in array) >> [ext/standard/tests/strings/bug22224.phpt] >> ===================================================================== >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> Marcus Best regards, Marcus -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
