emacs-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: master 941a2e7: todo-mode: don't assume an ordering of tests


From: Stephen Berman
Subject: Re: master 941a2e7: todo-mode: don't assume an ordering of tests
Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 21:52:03 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.50 (gnu/linux)

On Tue, 30 May 2017 11:35:33 -0400 Glenn Morris <address@hidden> wrote:

> Stephen Berman wrote:
>
>> How did you run the tests such that you got prompted for a file
>
> make check

Hmm.  I cannot reproduce the failure.  I commented out your changes to
todo-mode-tests.el, deleted the .elc file, ran make check, and all the
tests in todo-mode-tests.el passed.  Do you have any idea why our
results differ?

>> and what was the prompt?
>
> "Enter name of new todo file (TAB or SPC to see current names):"
>
> Ref: http://hydra.nixos.org/build/53544385
>    
>    Testing lisp/calendar/todo-mode-tests.el
>    Running 3 tests (2017-05-29 22:44:07+0000)
>    Enter name of new todo file (TAB or SPC to see current names): Test
>    todo-test-item-highlighting backtrace:
>      completing-read("Enter name of new todo file (TAB or SPC to see curr
>      todo-read-file-name("Enter name of new todo file (TAB or SPC to see 
>      todo-add-file()
>      todo-show()

This backtrace means that the variables todo-current-todo-file,
todo-global-current-todo-file, and todo-default-todo-file all evaluated
to nil.  I don't see how that could happen with the test file, and when
I start Emacs with -Q, eval the test file, instrument todo-show, run ert
on the test todo-test-item-highlighting, and step through todo-show and
todo-check-file, I see that todo-default-todo-file gets assigned
todo-test-1.todo from the todo-resources directory as its value.  So I
have no idea how this error could arise.  And I also don't see how
adding the sexp `(todo-test-get-archive 2)' prevents it, since that just
displays the file todo-test-1.toda in todo-archive-mode (and that file
becomes the buffer-local value of todo-current-todo-file).

Can you reproduce the error, and if so, could you try debugging it?  Or
if you don't have time for that, could you tell me why you used that
specific change to avoid the error?  Maybe I'm overlooking something.

Steve Berman



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]