librelist archives

« back to archive

Tests bugs

Tests bugs

From:
Lucas Kanashiro
Date:
2013-09-02 @ 15:36
Some tests on the module DOT are breaking, seemingly for no reason, because
sometimes pass and others do not. Besides some scenarios of acceptance
tests also are breaking.

Re: [analizo] Tests bugs

From:
Macartur Carvalho
Date:
2013-09-02 @ 16:12
root@debian:~/analizo# rake
prove -Ilib t/
t/Analizo/Batch.t ................................. ok
t/Analizo/Batch/Directories.t ..................... ok
t/Analizo/Batch/Git.t ............................. ok
t/Analizo/Batch/Job.t ............................. ok
t/Analizo/Batch/Job/Directories.t ................. ok
t/Analizo/Batch/Job/Git.t ......................... ok
t/Analizo/Batch/Output.t .......................... ok
t/Analizo/Batch/Output/CSV.t ...................... ok
t/Analizo/Batch/Output/DB.t ....................... ok
t/Analizo/Batch/Runner.t .......................... ok
t/Analizo/Batch/Runner/Parallel.t ................. ok
t/Analizo/Batch/Runner/Sequential.t ............... ok
t/Analizo/Extractor.t ............................. ok
t/Analizo/Extractor/Doxyparse.t ................... ok
t/Analizo/Extractor/DoxyparseFile.t ............... ok
t/Analizo/Extractor/Sloccount.t ................... ok
t/Analizo/FilenameFilter.t ........................ ok
t/Analizo/GlobalMetric/ChangeCost.t ............... ok
t/Analizo/GlobalMetric/MethodsPerAbstractClass.t .. ok
t/Analizo/GlobalMetric/TotalAbstractClasses.t ..... ok
t/Analizo/GlobalMetric/TotalEloc.t ................ ok
t/Analizo/GlobalMetrics.t ......................... ok
t/Analizo/LanguageFilter.t ........................ ok
t/Analizo/Metric/AfferentConnections.t ............ ok
t/Analizo/Metric/AverageCycloComplexity.t ......... ok
t/Analizo/Metric/AverageMethodLinesOfCode.t ....... ok
t/Analizo/Metric/AverageNumberOfParameters.t ...... ok
t/Analizo/Metric/CouplingBetweenObjects.t ......... ok
t/Analizo/Metric/DepthOfInheritanceTree.t ......... ok
t/Analizo/Metric/LackOfCohesionOfMethods.t ........ ok
t/Analizo/Metric/LinesOfCode.t .................... ok
t/Analizo/Metric/MaximumMethodLinesOfCode.t ....... ok
t/Analizo/Metric/NumberOfAttributes.t ............. ok
t/Analizo/Metric/NumberOfChildren.t ............... ok
t/Analizo/Metric/NumberOfMethods.t ................ ok
t/Analizo/Metric/NumberOfPublicAttributes.t ....... ok
t/Analizo/Metric/NumberOfPublicMethods.t .......... ok
t/Analizo/Metric/ResponseForClass.t ............... ok
t/Analizo/Metric/StructuralComplexity.t ........... ok
t/Analizo/Metrics.t ............................... ok
t/Analizo/Model.t ................................. ok
t/Analizo/ModuleMetric.t .......................... ok
t/Analizo/ModuleMetrics.t ......................... ok
t/Analizo/Output/DOT.t ............................ 1/?
#   Failed test 'should distinguish direct from indirect calls'
#   at t/Analizo/Output/DOT.t line 112.
#   (in t::Analizo::Output::DOT->indirect_calls)
#          got: 'digraph callgraph {
# "function1" -> "function3" [style=dotted];
# "function1" -> "function2" [style=solid];
# }
# '
#     expected: 'digraph callgraph {
# "function1" -> "function2" [style=solid];
# "function1" -> "function3" [style=dotted];
# }
# '

#   Failed test 'must add two clusters in lexicographic order'
#   at t/Analizo/Output/DOT.t line 260.
#   (in t::Analizo::Output::DOT->two_clusters_in_order)
#          got: 'digraph callgraph {
# subgraph "cluster_cluster1.c.r1874.expand" {
#   label = "cluster1.c";
#   node [label="function1"] "function1";
# }
# subgraph "cluster_cluster2.c.r9873.expand" {
#   label = "cluster2.c";
#   node [label="function2"] "function2";
#   node [label="function3"] "function3";
# }
# "function1" -> "function3" [style=solid];
# "function1" -> "function2" [style=solid];
# }
# '
#     expected: 'digraph callgraph {
# subgraph "cluster_cluster1.c.r1874.expand" {
#   label = "cluster1.c";
#   node [label="function1"] "function1";
# }
# subgraph "cluster_cluster2.c.r9873.expand" {
#   label = "cluster2.c";
#   node [label="function2"] "function2";
#   node [label="function3"] "function3";
# }
# "function1" -> "function2" [style=solid];
# "function1" -> "function3" [style=solid];
# }
# '
# Looks like you failed 2 tests of 28.
t/Analizo/Output/DOT.t ............................ Dubious, test returned
2 (wstat 512, 0x200)
Failed 2/28 subtests

Test Summary Report
-------------------
t/Analizo/Output/DOT.t                          (Wstat: 512 Tests: 28
Failed: 2)
  Failed tests:  17, 26
  Non-zero exit status: 2
Files=44, Tests=619, 31 wallclock secs ( 0.26 usr  0.11 sys + 14.81 cusr
2.76 csys = 17.94 CPU)
Result: FAIL
rake aborted!
Command failed with status (1): [prove -Ilib t/...]
/root/analizo/Rakefile:32:in `block in <top (required)>'
Tasks: TOP => default => test:unit
(See full trace by running task with --trace)
root@debian:~/analizo#



2013/9/2 Lucas Kanashiro <kanashiro.duarte@gmail.com>

> Some tests on the module DOT are breaking, seemingly for no reason,
> because sometimes pass and others do not. Besides some scenarios of
> acceptance tests also are breaking.
>

Re: [analizo] Tests bugs

From:
Antonio Terceiro
Date:
2013-09-02 @ 19:58
On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 01:12:45PM -0300, Macartur Carvalho wrote:
> t/Analizo/Output/DOT.t ............................ 1/?
> #   Failed test 'should distinguish direct from indirect calls'
> #   at t/Analizo/Output/DOT.t line 112.
> #   (in t::Analizo::Output::DOT->indirect_calls)
> #          got: 'digraph callgraph {
> # "function1" -> "function3" [style=dotted];
> # "function1" -> "function2" [style=solid];
> # }
> # '
> #     expected: 'digraph callgraph {
> # "function1" -> "function2" [style=solid];
> # "function1" -> "function3" [style=dotted];
> # }
> # '
> 
> #   Failed test 'must add two clusters in lexicographic order'
> #   at t/Analizo/Output/DOT.t line 260.
> #   (in t::Analizo::Output::DOT->two_clusters_in_order)
> #          got: 'digraph callgraph {
> # subgraph "cluster_cluster1.c.r1874.expand" {
> #   label = "cluster1.c";
> #   node [label="function1"] "function1";
> # }
> # subgraph "cluster_cluster2.c.r9873.expand" {
> #   label = "cluster2.c";
> #   node [label="function2"] "function2";
> #   node [label="function3"] "function3";
> # }
> # "function1" -> "function3" [style=solid];
> # "function1" -> "function2" [style=solid];
> # }
> # '
> #     expected: 'digraph callgraph {
> # subgraph "cluster_cluster1.c.r1874.expand" {
> #   label = "cluster1.c";
> #   node [label="function1"] "function1";
> # }
> # subgraph "cluster_cluster2.c.r9873.expand" {
> #   label = "cluster2.c";
> #   node [label="function2"] "function2";
> #   node [label="function3"] "function3";
> # }
> # "function1" -> "function2" [style=solid];
> # "function1" -> "function3" [style=solid];
> # }
> # '
> # Looks like you failed 2 tests of 28.

Interesting. So the problem is that the code depended on the order of
hash keys, and that was changed in Perl 5.18 in a way that now the hash
keys are returned in a random order:

http://perldoc.perl.org/perl5180delta.html#Hash-overhaul

It's never a good idea to assume any specific ordering of hash keys, so
DOT.pm has to fixed to force sorting of the hash keys. Basically we have
to change every `keys %foo` into `sort(keys %foo)` ... and that may
break other tests that which need to be fixed.

Do you guys want to give it a try on fixing this?

-- 
Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@softwarelivre.org>
http://softwarelivre.org/terceiro

Re: [analizo] Tests bugs

From:
Lucas Kanashiro
Date:
2013-09-03 @ 01:34
Let's try!


2013/9/2 Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@softwarelivre.org>

> On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 01:12:45PM -0300, Macartur Carvalho wrote:
> > t/Analizo/Output/DOT.t ............................ 1/?
> > #   Failed test 'should distinguish direct from indirect calls'
> > #   at t/Analizo/Output/DOT.t line 112.
> > #   (in t::Analizo::Output::DOT->indirect_calls)
> > #          got: 'digraph callgraph {
> > # "function1" -> "function3" [style=dotted];
> > # "function1" -> "function2" [style=solid];
> > # }
> > # '
> > #     expected: 'digraph callgraph {
> > # "function1" -> "function2" [style=solid];
> > # "function1" -> "function3" [style=dotted];
> > # }
> > # '
> >
> > #   Failed test 'must add two clusters in lexicographic order'
> > #   at t/Analizo/Output/DOT.t line 260.
> > #   (in t::Analizo::Output::DOT->two_clusters_in_order)
> > #          got: 'digraph callgraph {
> > # subgraph "cluster_cluster1.c.r1874.expand" {
> > #   label = "cluster1.c";
> > #   node [label="function1"] "function1";
> > # }
> > # subgraph "cluster_cluster2.c.r9873.expand" {
> > #   label = "cluster2.c";
> > #   node [label="function2"] "function2";
> > #   node [label="function3"] "function3";
> > # }
> > # "function1" -> "function3" [style=solid];
> > # "function1" -> "function2" [style=solid];
> > # }
> > # '
> > #     expected: 'digraph callgraph {
> > # subgraph "cluster_cluster1.c.r1874.expand" {
> > #   label = "cluster1.c";
> > #   node [label="function1"] "function1";
> > # }
> > # subgraph "cluster_cluster2.c.r9873.expand" {
> > #   label = "cluster2.c";
> > #   node [label="function2"] "function2";
> > #   node [label="function3"] "function3";
> > # }
> > # "function1" -> "function2" [style=solid];
> > # "function1" -> "function3" [style=solid];
> > # }
> > # '
> > # Looks like you failed 2 tests of 28.
>
> Interesting. So the problem is that the code depended on the order of
> hash keys, and that was changed in Perl 5.18 in a way that now the hash
> keys are returned in a random order:
>
> http://perldoc.perl.org/perl5180delta.html#Hash-overhaul
>
> It's never a good idea to assume any specific ordering of hash keys, so
> DOT.pm has to fixed to force sorting of the hash keys. Basically we have
> to change every `keys %foo` into `sort(keys %foo)` ... and that may
> break other tests that which need to be fixed.
>
> Do you guys want to give it a try on fixing this?
>
> --
> Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@softwarelivre.org>
> http://softwarelivre.org/terceiro
>
>
>

Re: [analizo] Tests bugs

From:
Victor Cotrim
Date:
2013-09-06 @ 20:34
We must create a new topic on issues of this? or only solve?


2013/9/2 Lucas Kanashiro <kanashiro.duarte@gmail.com>

> Let's try!
>
>
> 2013/9/2 Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@softwarelivre.org>
>
>> On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 01:12:45PM -0300, Macartur Carvalho wrote:
>> > t/Analizo/Output/DOT.t ............................ 1/?
>> > #   Failed test 'should distinguish direct from indirect calls'
>> > #   at t/Analizo/Output/DOT.t line 112.
>> > #   (in t::Analizo::Output::DOT->indirect_calls)
>> > #          got: 'digraph callgraph {
>> > # "function1" -> "function3" [style=dotted];
>> > # "function1" -> "function2" [style=solid];
>> > # }
>> > # '
>> > #     expected: 'digraph callgraph {
>> > # "function1" -> "function2" [style=solid];
>> > # "function1" -> "function3" [style=dotted];
>> > # }
>> > # '
>> >
>> > #   Failed test 'must add two clusters in lexicographic order'
>> > #   at t/Analizo/Output/DOT.t line 260.
>> > #   (in t::Analizo::Output::DOT->two_clusters_in_order)
>> > #          got: 'digraph callgraph {
>> > # subgraph "cluster_cluster1.c.r1874.expand" {
>> > #   label = "cluster1.c";
>> > #   node [label="function1"] "function1";
>> > # }
>> > # subgraph "cluster_cluster2.c.r9873.expand" {
>> > #   label = "cluster2.c";
>> > #   node [label="function2"] "function2";
>> > #   node [label="function3"] "function3";
>> > # }
>> > # "function1" -> "function3" [style=solid];
>> > # "function1" -> "function2" [style=solid];
>> > # }
>> > # '
>> > #     expected: 'digraph callgraph {
>> > # subgraph "cluster_cluster1.c.r1874.expand" {
>> > #   label = "cluster1.c";
>> > #   node [label="function1"] "function1";
>> > # }
>> > # subgraph "cluster_cluster2.c.r9873.expand" {
>> > #   label = "cluster2.c";
>> > #   node [label="function2"] "function2";
>> > #   node [label="function3"] "function3";
>> > # }
>> > # "function1" -> "function2" [style=solid];
>> > # "function1" -> "function3" [style=solid];
>> > # }
>> > # '
>> > # Looks like you failed 2 tests of 28.
>>
>> Interesting. So the problem is that the code depended on the order of
>> hash keys, and that was changed in Perl 5.18 in a way that now the hash
>> keys are returned in a random order:
>>
>> http://perldoc.perl.org/perl5180delta.html#Hash-overhaul
>>
>> It's never a good idea to assume any specific ordering of hash keys, so
>> DOT.pm has to fixed to force sorting of the hash keys. Basically we have
>> to change every `keys %foo` into `sort(keys %foo)` ... and that may
>> break other tests that which need to be fixed.
>>
>> Do you guys want to give it a try on fixing this?
>>
>> --
>> Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@softwarelivre.org>
>> http://softwarelivre.org/terceiro
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [analizo] Tests bugs

From:
Antonio Terceiro
Date:
2013-09-07 @ 13:28
On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 05:34:05PM -0300, Victor Cotrim wrote:
> We must create a new topic on issues of this? or only solve?

Ideally every bug should be reported ... unless you fix it right away
when it's found.

I created one issue for this:
https://github.com/analizo/analizo/issues/45

-- 
Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@softwarelivre.org>
http://softwarelivre.org/terceiro

Re: [analizo] Tests bugs

From:
Macartur Carvalho
Date:
2013-09-11 @ 21:52
This issue is done. All the test is passing and we send the pull-request
for the official Analizo.

But now we found some bugs in the acceptance tests.The log of bugs is below:


root@debian:~/analizo# rake
prove -Ilib t/
t/Analizo/Batch.t ................................. ok
t/Analizo/Batch/Directories.t ..................... ok
t/Analizo/Batch/Git.t ............................. ok
t/Analizo/Batch/Job.t ............................. ok
t/Analizo/Batch/Job/Directories.t ................. ok
t/Analizo/Batch/Job/Git.t ......................... ok
t/Analizo/Batch/Output.t .......................... ok
t/Analizo/Batch/Output/CSV.t ...................... ok
t/Analizo/Batch/Output/DB.t ....................... ok
t/Analizo/Batch/Runner.t .......................... ok
t/Analizo/Batch/Runner/Parallel.t ................. ok
t/Analizo/Batch/Runner/Sequential.t ............... ok
t/Analizo/Extractor.t ............................. ok
t/Analizo/Extractor/Doxyparse.t ................... ok
t/Analizo/Extractor/DoxyparseFile.t ............... ok
t/Analizo/Extractor/Sloccount.t ................... ok
t/Analizo/FilenameFilter.t ........................ ok
t/Analizo/GlobalMetric/ChangeCost.t ............... ok
t/Analizo/GlobalMetric/MethodsPerAbstractClass.t .. ok
t/Analizo/GlobalMetric/TotalAbstractClasses.t ..... ok
t/Analizo/GlobalMetric/TotalEloc.t ................ ok
t/Analizo/GlobalMetrics.t ......................... ok
t/Analizo/LanguageFilter.t ........................ ok
t/Analizo/Metric/AfferentConnections.t ............ ok
t/Analizo/Metric/AverageCycloComplexity.t ......... ok
t/Analizo/Metric/AverageMethodLinesOfCode.t ....... ok
t/Analizo/Metric/AverageNumberOfParameters.t ...... ok
t/Analizo/Metric/CouplingBetweenObjects.t ......... ok
t/Analizo/Metric/DepthOfInheritanceTree.t ......... ok
t/Analizo/Metric/LackOfCohesionOfMethods.t ........ ok
t/Analizo/Metric/LinesOfCode.t .................... ok
t/Analizo/Metric/MaximumMethodLinesOfCode.t ....... ok
t/Analizo/Metric/NumberOfAttributes.t ............. ok
t/Analizo/Metric/NumberOfChildren.t ............... ok
t/Analizo/Metric/NumberOfMethods.t ................ ok
t/Analizo/Metric/NumberOfPublicAttributes.t ....... ok
t/Analizo/Metric/NumberOfPublicMethods.t .......... ok
t/Analizo/Metric/ResponseForClass.t ............... ok
t/Analizo/Metric/StructuralComplexity.t ........... ok
t/Analizo/Metrics.t ............................... ok
t/Analizo/Model.t ................................. ok
t/Analizo/ModuleMetric.t .......................... ok
t/Analizo/ModuleMetrics.t ......................... ok
t/Analizo/Output/DOT.t ............................ ok
All tests successful.
Files=44, Tests=619, 28 wallclock secs ( 0.64 usr  0.20 sys + 15.38 cusr
3.31 csys = 19.53 CPU)
Result: PASS
perl test.pl
I: Running acceptance tests with cucumber ...
ruby 1.9.3p194 (2012-04-20 revision 35410) [x86_64-linux]
cucumber 1.3.6

......----........F--..F--..F--...........................................F-.......---.........----............----............-------...............----------..----.........--............................---..---..---..---..---..............---.......................................---..---..---....---..---..---..---..-----......---..........F-....--------------.........................................................................................

(::) failed steps (::)

expected: 0
     got: 2 (using ==) (RSpec::Expectations::ExpectationNotMetError)
./features/step_definitions/analizo_steps.rb:93:in `/^the exit status must
be (.+)$/'
features/dsm.feature:9:in `Then the exit status must be 0'

expected: 0
     got: 2 (using ==) (RSpec::Expectations::ExpectationNotMetError)
./features/step_definitions/analizo_steps.rb:93:in `/^the exit status must
be (.+)$/'
features/dsm.feature:16:in `Then the exit status must be 0'

expected: 0
     got: 2 (using ==) (RSpec::Expectations::ExpectationNotMetError)
./features/step_definitions/analizo_steps.rb:93:in `/^the exit status must
be (.+)$/'
features/dsm.feature:23:in `Then the exit status must be 0'

expected not: == 0
         got:    0 (RSpec::Expectations::ExpectationNotMetError)
./features/step_definitions/analizo_steps.rb:97:in `/^the exit status must
not be (.+)$/'
features/graph/output-file.feature:20:in `Then the exit status must not be
0'

expected not: == 0
         got:    0 (RSpec::Expectations::ExpectationNotMetError)
./features/step_definitions/analizo_steps.rb:97:in `/^the exit status must
not be (.+)$/'
features/metrics/output-file.feature:14:in `Then the exit status must not
be 0'

Failing Scenarios:
cucumber features/dsm.feature:6 # Scenario: write to "dsm.png" file by
default
cucumber features/dsm.feature:13 # Scenario: write to "sample_basic.png"
cucumber features/dsm.feature:20 # Scenario: HTML output
cucumber features/graph/output-file.feature:15 # Scenario: passing output
file without permission to write
cucumber features/metrics/output-file.feature:9 # Scenario: passing output
file without permission to write

125 scenarios (5 failed, 120 passed)
668 steps (5 failed, 8 skipped, 655 passed)
1m50.373s
rake aborted!
Command failed with status (1): [perl test.pl...]
/root/analizo/Rakefile:37:in `block in <top (required)>'
Tasks: TOP => default => test:acceptance
(See full trace by running task with --trace)
root@debian:~/analizo#



2013/9/7 Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@softwarelivre.org>

> On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 05:34:05PM -0300, Victor Cotrim wrote:
> > We must create a new topic on issues of this? or only solve?
>
> Ideally every bug should be reported ... unless you fix it right away
> when it's found.
>
> I created one issue for this:
> https://github.com/analizo/analizo/issues/45
>
> --
> Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@softwarelivre.org>
> http://softwarelivre.org/terceiro
>
>
>

Re: [analizo] Tests bugs

From:
Antonio Terceiro
Date:
2013-09-13 @ 22:54
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 06:52:12PM -0300, Macartur Carvalho wrote:
> cucumber 1.3.6
> 
......----........F--..F--..F--...........................................F-.......---.........----............----............-------...............----------..----.........--............................---..---..---..---..---..............---.......................................---..---..---....---..---..---..---..-----......---..........F-....--------------.........................................................................................
> 
> (::) failed steps (::)
> 
> expected: 0
>      got: 2 (using ==) (RSpec::Expectations::ExpectationNotMetError)
> ./features/step_definitions/analizo_steps.rb:93:in `/^the exit status must
> be (.+)$/'
> features/dsm.feature:9:in `Then the exit status must be 0'
> 
> expected: 0
>      got: 2 (using ==) (RSpec::Expectations::ExpectationNotMetError)
> ./features/step_definitions/analizo_steps.rb:93:in `/^the exit status must
> be (.+)$/'
> features/dsm.feature:16:in `Then the exit status must be 0'
> 
> expected: 0
>      got: 2 (using ==) (RSpec::Expectations::ExpectationNotMetError)
> ./features/step_definitions/analizo_steps.rb:93:in `/^the exit status must
> be (.+)$/'
> features/dsm.feature:23:in `Then the exit status must be 0'
> 
> expected not: == 0
>          got:    0 (RSpec::Expectations::ExpectationNotMetError)
> ./features/step_definitions/analizo_steps.rb:97:in `/^the exit status must
> not be (.+)$/'
> features/graph/output-file.feature:20:in `Then the exit status must not be
> 0'
> 
> expected not: == 0
>          got:    0 (RSpec::Expectations::ExpectationNotMetError)
> ./features/step_definitions/analizo_steps.rb:97:in `/^the exit status must
> not be (.+)$/'
> features/metrics/output-file.feature:14:in `Then the exit status must not
> be 0'
> 
> Failing Scenarios:
> cucumber features/dsm.feature:6 # Scenario: write to "dsm.png" file by
> default
> cucumber features/dsm.feature:13 # Scenario: write to "sample_basic.png"
> cucumber features/dsm.feature:20 # Scenario: HTML output
> cucumber features/graph/output-file.feature:15 # Scenario: passing output
> file without permission to write
> cucumber features/metrics/output-file.feature:9 # Scenario: passing output
> file without permission to write
> 
> 125 scenarios (5 failed, 120 passed)
> 668 steps (5 failed, 8 skipped, 655 passed)
> 1m50.373s
> rake aborted!
> Command failed with status (1): [perl test.pl...]
> /root/analizo/Rakefile:37:in `block in <top (required)>'
> Tasks: TOP => default => test:acceptance
> (See full trace by running task with --trace)
> root@debian:~/analizo#

all tests pass for me here, maybe there's something broken or missing
on your side?

Re: [analizo] Tests bugs

From:
Joenio Costa
Date:
2013-09-17 @ 12:08
Em 13-09-2013 19:54, Antonio Terceiro escreveu:
> all tests pass for me here

Here too.

-- 
Joenio Costa
Colivre - Cooperativa de Tecnologias Livres
Cel: (71) 8182-5123
http://www.colivre.coop.br

Re: [analizo] Tests bugs

From:
Macartur Carvalho
Date:
2013-09-18 @ 22:15
  We source.list is below:

  deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 7.1.0 _Wheezy_ - Official amd64 DVD Binary-1
201    30615-23:06]/ wheezy contrib main

  deb http://security.debian.org/ wheezy/updates main contrib
  deb-src http://security.debian.org/ wheezy/updates main contrib

  deb http://download.unesp.br/linux/debian squeeze main
  deb http://ftp.br.debian.org/debian sid main


  We want know what source.list you are using and the debian version?
  To compare and fix the acceptance test.

Re: [analizo] Tests bugs

From:
Antonio Terceiro
Date:
2013-09-18 @ 22:30
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 07:15:37PM -0300, Macartur Carvalho wrote:
>   We source.list is below:
> 
>   deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 7.1.0 _Wheezy_ - Official amd64 DVD Binary-1
> 201    30615-23:06]/ wheezy contrib main
> 
>   deb http://security.debian.org/ wheezy/updates main contrib
>   deb-src http://security.debian.org/ wheezy/updates main contrib
> 
>   deb http://download.unesp.br/linux/debian squeeze main
>   deb http://ftp.br.debian.org/debian sid main

remove everything and keep only the "sid" line.

-- 
Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@softwarelivre.org>
http://softwarelivre.org/terceiro

Re: [analizo] Tests bugs

From:
Antonio Terceiro
Date:
2013-09-11 @ 23:10
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 06:52:12PM -0300, Macartur Carvalho wrote:
> This issue is done. All the test is passing and we send the pull-request
> for the official Analizo.
> 
> But now we found some bugs in the acceptance tests.The log of bugs is below:
[...]

will you also work on this? it will be a good exercise :-)

-- 
Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@softwarelivre.org>
http://softwarelivre.org/terceiro

Re: [analizo] Tests bugs

From:
Paulo Meirelles
Date:
2013-09-12 @ 00:18
2013/9/11 Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@softwarelivre.org>

> On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 06:52:12PM -0300, Macartur Carvalho wrote:
> > This issue is done. All the test is passing and we send the pull-request
> > for the official Analizo.
> >
> > But now we found some bugs in the acceptance tests.The log of bugs is
> below:
> [...]
>
> will you also work on this? it will be a good exercise :-)
>

Yes, we will. May you say/give us a "first step"?

=)

-- 
Paulo Meirelles
FGA-UnB (http://fga.unb.br)
CCSL-IME/USP (http://ccsl.ime.usp.br)

Re: [analizo] Tests bugs

From:
Antonio Terceiro
Date:
2013-09-12 @ 17:37
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 09:18:26PM -0300, Paulo Meirelles wrote:
> 2013/9/11 Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@softwarelivre.org>
> 
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 06:52:12PM -0300, Macartur Carvalho wrote:
> > > This issue is done. All the test is passing and we send the pull-request
> > > for the official Analizo.
> > >
> > > But now we found some bugs in the acceptance tests.The log of bugs is
> > below:
> > [...]
> >
> > will you also work on this? it will be a good exercise :-)
> >
> 
> Yes, we will. May you say/give us a "first step"?

I would check which command, with wich arguments, is returning an error
status when it shouldn't. Then I would run that manually to see what the
problem is. It's probably a very simple thing in the main script itself,
because no unit test fails.

-- 
Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@softwarelivre.org>
http://softwarelivre.org/terceiro