Re: [tools]winetest: fix child-result coloring and counting

[Paul Vriens]

On 01/04/2010 08:50 PM, André Hentschel wrote:
> You can see wrong coloring e.g. here http://test.winehq.org/data/f74e312bf81032c46bd2ce080a5f6a33c7ac3ee3/wine_ah...
> Also the counting is wrong, that unit test is shown in the summary with 2 errors, but only has 1
> This patch fixes the issue. The totalize of those variables is already made in the "offline" software
> ---
>   winetest/dissect |    6 +++---
>   1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/winetest/dissect b/winetest/dissect
> index 16cc118..ce90bda 100755
> --- a/winetest/dissect
> +++ b/winetest/dissect
> @@ -252,9 +252,9 @@ while (<IN>) {
>       } elsif (/^(.*$unit.*: (\d+) tests executed \((\d+) marked as todo, (\d+) failures?\), (\d+) skipped\.)\r?$/) {
>           $lines++;
>           $total += $2;
> -        $todo += $3;
> -        $failed += $4;
> -        $skipped += $5;
> +        $todo = $3;
> +        $failed = $4;
> +        $skipped = $5;
>           chomp;
>           s/\r+$//;
>           my $class = "test result";

Hi André,

That log also shows "server: 1 failures in child process". I'm not a 
100% sure but from the looks of it this is that one/1 failure mentioned 
in that last line:

server: 120 tests executed (1 marked as todo, 1 failure), 0 skipped.

If I'm correct it does mean that we have 2 failures and 1 todo.

(cc-ing AJ as he wrote that winetest_wait_child_process() thingy).

-- 
Cheers,

Paul.

[tools]winetest: fix child-result coloring and counting

[André Hentschel]

Paul Vriens schrieb:
> On 01/04/2010 08:50 PM, André Hentschel wrote:
> > You can see wrong coloring e.g. here
> > http://test.winehq.org/data/f74e312bf81032c46bd2ce080a5f6a33c7ac3ee3/wine_ah...
> >
> > Also the counting is wrong, that unit test is shown in the summary
> > with 2 errors, but only has 1
> > This patch fixes the issue. The totalize of those variables is already
> > made in the "offline" software
> > ---
> >   winetest/dissect |    6 +++---
> >   1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/winetest/dissect b/winetest/dissect
> > index 16cc118..ce90bda 100755
> > --- a/winetest/dissect
> > +++ b/winetest/dissect
> > @@ -252,9 +252,9 @@ while (<IN>) {
> >       } elsif (/^(.*$unit.*: (\d+) tests executed \((\d+) marked as
> > todo, (\d+) failures?\), (\d+) skipped\.)\r?$/) {
> >           $lines++;
> >           $total += $2;
> > -        $todo += $3;
> > -        $failed += $4;
> > -        $skipped += $5;
> > +        $todo = $3;
> > +        $failed = $4;
> > +        $skipped = $5;
> >           chomp;
> >           s/\r+$//;
> >           my $class = "test result";
>
> Hi André,
>
> That log also shows "server: 1 failures in child process". I'm not a
> 100% sure but from the looks of it this is that one/1 failure mentioned
> in that last line:
>
> server: 120 tests executed (1 marked as todo, 1 failure), 0 skipped.
>
> If I'm correct it does mean that we have 2 failures and 1 todo.
>
> (cc-ing AJ as he wrote that winetest_wait_child_process() thingy).

Hi Paul,
it only occurs one failure: "server.c:1412: Test failed: RpcBindingSetAuthInfoExA failed 1747", that one happens in the child process.
that is mentioned three times:
server: 7 tests executed (0 marked as todo, 1 failure), 0 skipped.
server: 1 failures in child process
server: 120 tests executed (1 marked as todo, 1 failure), 0 skipped.

dissect adds up the two summaries, which is wrong.
-- 

Best Regards, André Hentschel

[tools]winetest: fix child-result coloring and counting

[Paul Vriens]

On 01/04/2010 10:00 PM, André Hentschel wrote:
> Paul Vriens schrieb:
> > On 01/04/2010 08:50 PM, André Hentschel wrote:
> > > You can see wrong coloring e.g. here
> > > http://test.winehq.org/data/f74e312bf81032c46bd2ce080a5f6a33c7ac3ee3/wine_ah...
> > >
> > > Also the counting is wrong, that unit test is shown in the summary
> > > with 2 errors, but only has 1
> > > This patch fixes the issue. The totalize of those variables is already
> > > made in the "offline" software
> > > ---
> > >    winetest/dissect |    6 +++---
> > >    1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/winetest/dissect b/winetest/dissect
> > > index 16cc118..ce90bda 100755
> > > --- a/winetest/dissect
> > > +++ b/winetest/dissect
> > > @@ -252,9 +252,9 @@ while (<IN>) {
> > >        } elsif (/^(.*$unit.*: (\d+) tests executed \((\d+) marked as
> > > todo, (\d+) failures?\), (\d+) skipped\.)\r?$/) {
> > >            $lines++;
> > >            $total += $2;
> > > -        $todo += $3;
> > > -        $failed += $4;
> > > -        $skipped += $5;
> > > +        $todo = $3;
> > > +        $failed = $4;
> > > +        $skipped = $5;
> > >            chomp;
> > >            s/\r+$//;
> > >            my $class = "test result";
> >
> > Hi André,
> >
> > That log also shows "server: 1 failures in child process". I'm not a
> > 100% sure but from the looks of it this is that one/1 failure mentioned
> > in that last line:
> >
> > server: 120 tests executed (1 marked as todo, 1 failure), 0 skipped.
> >
> > If I'm correct it does mean that we have 2 failures and 1 todo.
> >
> > (cc-ing AJ as he wrote that winetest_wait_child_process() thingy).
>
> Hi Paul,
> it only occurs one failure: "server.c:1412: Test failed: RpcBindingSetAuthInfoExA failed 1747", that one happens in the child process.
> that is mentioned three times:
> server: 7 tests executed (0 marked as todo, 1 failure), 0 skipped.
> server: 1 failures in child process

But is this one actually a failure that is only reported in the line 
below and not by itself as a "Test failed: ......"?
> server: 120 tests executed (1 marked as todo, 1 failure), 0 skipped.
>
> dissect adds up the two summaries, which is wrong.

-- 
Cheers,

Paul.

[tools]winetest: fix child-result coloring and counting

[André Hentschel]

Paul Vriens schrieb:
> On 01/04/2010 10:00 PM, André Hentschel wrote:
> > Paul Vriens schrieb:
> > > On 01/04/2010 08:50 PM, André Hentschel wrote:
> > > > You can see wrong coloring e.g. here
> > > > http://test.winehq.org/data/f74e312bf81032c46bd2ce080a5f6a33c7ac3ee3/wine_ah...
> > > >
> > > > Also the counting is wrong, that unit test is shown in the summary
> > > > with 2 errors, but only has 1
> > > > This patch fixes the issue. The totalize of those variables is already
> > > > made in the "offline" software
> > > > ---
> > > >    winetest/dissect |    6 +++---
> > > >    1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/winetest/dissect b/winetest/dissect
> > > > index 16cc118..ce90bda 100755
> > > > --- a/winetest/dissect
> > > > +++ b/winetest/dissect
> > > > @@ -252,9 +252,9 @@ while (<IN>) {
> > > >        } elsif (/^(.*$unit.*: (\d+) tests executed \((\d+) marked as
> > > > todo, (\d+) failures?\), (\d+) skipped\.)\r?$/) {
> > > >            $lines++;
> > > >            $total += $2;
> > > > -        $todo += $3;
> > > > -        $failed += $4;
> > > > -        $skipped += $5;
> > > > +        $todo = $3;
> > > > +        $failed = $4;
> > > > +        $skipped = $5;
> > > >            chomp;
> > > >            s/\r+$//;
> > > >            my $class = "test result";
> > >
> > > Hi André,
> > >
> > > That log also shows "server: 1 failures in child process". I'm not a
> > > 100% sure but from the looks of it this is that one/1 failure mentioned
> > > in that last line:
> > >
> > > server: 120 tests executed (1 marked as todo, 1 failure), 0 skipped.
> > >
> > > If I'm correct it does mean that we have 2 failures and 1 todo.
> > >
> > > (cc-ing AJ as he wrote that winetest_wait_child_process() thingy).
> >
> > Hi Paul,
> > it only occurs one failure: "server.c:1412: Test failed:
> > RpcBindingSetAuthInfoExA failed 1747", that one happens in the child
> > process.
> > that is mentioned three times:
> > server: 7 tests executed (0 marked as todo, 1 failure), 0 skipped.
> > server: 1 failures in child process
>
> But is this one actually a failure that is only reported in the line
> below and not by itself as a "Test failed: ......"?

No, its just a message(ignored by dissect) for human readers to quickly see what happened in the childprocess AFAIK
> > server: 120 tests executed (1 marked as todo, 1 failure), 0 skipped.
> >
> > dissect adds up the two summaries, which is wrong.

-- 

Best Regards, André Hentschel

[tools]winetest: fix child-result coloring and counting

[Alexandre Julliard]

Paul Vriens <paul.vriens.wine(a)gmail.com> writes:
> Hi André,
>
> That log also shows "server: 1 failures in child process". I'm not a
> 100% sure but from the looks of it this is that one/1 failure
> mentioned in that last line:
>
> server: 120 tests executed (1 marked as todo, 1 failure), 0 skipped.
>
> If I'm correct it does mean that we have 2 failures and 1 todo.
>
> (cc-ing AJ as he wrote that winetest_wait_child_process() thingy).

winetest_wait_child_process will add the child failures, but I don't
think it's used consistently everywhere, so that would be the first
thing to fix.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard(a)winehq.org

[tools]winetest: fix child-result coloring and counting

[Paul Vriens]

On 01/05/2010 10:23 AM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Paul Vriens<paul.vriens.wine(a)gmail.com>  writes:
> > Hi André,
> >
> > That log also shows "server: 1 failures in child process". I'm not a
> > 100% sure but from the looks of it this is that one/1 failure
> > mentioned in that last line:
> >
> > server: 120 tests executed (1 marked as todo, 1 failure), 0 skipped.
> >
> > If I'm correct it does mean that we have 2 failures and 1 todo.
> >
> > (cc-ing AJ as he wrote that winetest_wait_child_process() thingy).
>
> winetest_wait_child_process will add the child failures, but I don't
> think it's used consistently everywhere, so that would be the first
> thing to fix.

The 'adding of child failures' is needed because ok() messages from the 
child processes don't reach the report?

-- 
Cheers,

Paul.

[tools]winetest: fix child-result coloring and counting

[Alexandre Julliard]

Paul Vriens <paul.vriens.wine(a)gmail.com> writes:
> On 01/05/2010 10:23 AM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> > winetest_wait_child_process will add the child failures, but I don't
> > think it's used consistently everywhere, so that would be the first
> > thing to fix.
>
> The 'adding of child failures' is needed because ok() messages from
> the child processes don't reach the report?

No, it's because we want the parent to exit with a failure if a child
failed.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard(a)winehq.org