new inetmib1 test failures

[James Hawkins]

Hi Juan,

Tests you added in the following commit are failing for most systems:

commit c531c117340a43dbe8668189a32e6dd27f091ce4
Author: Juan Lang <juan.lang(a)gmail.com>
Date:   Tue May 20 20:54:34 2008 -0700

    inetmib1: Support the MIB2 interface table.


It looks like these values aren't set on all systems (these are the
results from the failing XP system):

main.c:191: Test failed: expected 2, got 65539
main.c:197: Test failed: expected 2, got 65539
main.c:203: Test failed: expected 2, got 65539

These are the results from a win2k machine:

main.c:191: Test failed: expected 4, got 16777221
main.c:197: Test failed: expected 4, got 16777221
main.c:203: Test failed: expected 4, got 16777221


Can you please have a look at these?

Thanks,
James Hawkins

[Juan Lang]

Hi James,
> It looks like these values aren't set on all systems (these are the
> results from the failing XP system):
>
> main.c:191: Test failed: expected 2, got 65539
> main.c:197: Test failed: expected 2, got 65539
> main.c:203: Test failed: expected 2, got 65539
>
> These are the results from a win2k machine:
>
> main.c:191: Test failed: expected 4, got 16777221
> main.c:197: Test failed: expected 4, got 16777221
> main.c:203: Test failed: expected 4, got 16777221

How odd.  I was surprised by the number of test failures, since I
wrote the tests on Windows XP (where they still pass for me.)  Thanks
for the reminder.  I'll relax the test from an == to a >=, which might
be surprising but is at least allowed according to RFC 1157.
--Juan

[Juan Lang]

> I'll relax the test from an == to a >=, which might
> be surprising but is at least allowed according to RFC 1157.

Oops, it isn't allowed, either.  I'll use the handy new broken() instead.
--Juan