Re: Question about the make check tests

[James]

On 30/01/14 11:21, David Kastrup wrote:
> James <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > On 22/01/14 18:16, David Kastrup wrote:
> > > "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden> writes:
> > >
> > > > Think it's worth putting this up as an Issue, so as not to lose it.
> > > Probably worth putting up as _9_ issues since tackling one in general
> > > will be independent from tackling another.
> > I haven't forgotten about this.
> >
> > I'll try and do it sometime today.
> I was going to say that most of them will spend not much more than 5-10
> minutes to fix anyway, but on second thought I am not sure about that:
> "programming error" indicates a message that should not be appearing in
> the first place, so it's not just a question of routing the regtest
> around the error: even if the regtest in itself is doing something bad,
> a "programming error" will not likely be an appropriate response.
What was also perplexing but is just adding noise at the moment is that 
I had something like 16 'errors' flagged after the make check when I 
looked at the logs, but when I ran LilyPond against those .ly files as 
if they were normal .ly files than with the make check script, only 9 
still borked.

I think there are a couple of reg tests that explicitly WANT a reg test 
error (i.e. it should fail and if it doesn't then there is something 
wrong!), but I think those are not the problem ones.

James