[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: fail.m ?
From: |
Paul Kienzle |
Subject: |
Re: fail.m ? |
Date: |
Wed, 15 Mar 2006 19:52:14 -0500 |
On Mar 15, 2006, at 5:21 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:
On 15-Mar-2006, David Bateman wrote:
| Any reason that fail.m was removed from scripts/testfun?
A message from Paul Kienzle said that it was no longer needed. I sent
a note to you and Paul about this yesterday, in a message with the
subject "regexp and tests":
| 1. 'fail' has been superceded by 'error' and 'warning' blocks.
| No need to include it.
OK, I removed it.
| Its removal
| causes about 20 odd test to fail with "make check". In many cases you
| can replace these failing tests with "%!error" but I have found that
| some cases require
|
| %!test
| %! ...
| %! fail(...)
|
| and so it would be better to keep it in my opinion...
OK, if you think it should come back from the dead, I can arrange
that.
There are two things I don't like about fail: it duplicates
code it test.m and like eval it involves too much quoting.
Also I wasn't expecting it would be needed in at %!test
block since failure conditions should be fairly easy to
set up. It isn't present in octave-forge.
That said, if David feels the need for it, then by all
means resurrect it.
I think the interface should be changed so that it matches
the format of error/warning blocks.
For example:
%!error <pattern> code
%!warning <pattern> code
should be equivalent to:
%!test fail('error','<pattern>','code')
%!test fail('warning','<pattern>','code')
The current definition is:
fail(code)
fail(code,'pattern')
fail(code,'warning','pattern')
I suggest:
fail(code)
fail('<pattern>',code)
fail('warning'|'error','<pattern>',code)
I'm not sure if the <> should be required for the patterns
in the fail function, but if it is not there then it is
harder to convert between error/warning and test blocks.
The octave-forge version of test still defines
%!fail (...)
as equivalent to
%!test fail(...)
Comments?
- Paul
- fail.m ?, David Bateman, 2006/03/15
- fail.m ?, John W. Eaton, 2006/03/15
- Re: fail.m ?,
Paul Kienzle <=