Re: struct array output from pkg

[Rik]

On 10/05/2014 02:52 AM, address@hidden wrote:

Subject:

Re: Test failures associated with license.m

From:

Carnë Draug <address@hidden>

Date:

10/04/2014 01:00 PM

To:

Daniel J Sebald <address@hidden>

CC:

Octave Maintainers <address@hidden>

List-Post:

<mailto:address@hidden>

Content-Transfer-Encoding:

quoted-printable

Precedence:

list

MIME-Version:

1.0

References:

<address@hidden>

In-Reply-To:

<address@hidden>

Message-ID:

<address@hidden>

Content-Type:

text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Message:

3

On 4 October 2014 19:41, Daniel J Sebald <address@hidden> wrote:

> I'm seeing some test failures.  One with polygcd, which I think is a known
> random occurrence failure.  (Should we change it to "known failure"?)  Then
> there are five failures for the output of the license command:
>

>>>>>> processing
>>>>>> /usr/local/src/octave/octave-complex_operators/octave/scripts/miscellaneous/license.m

>
> ***** assert ((license ("inuse", "octave")).feature, "octave")
> !!!!! test failed
> cellfun: C must be a cell array
>
> etc.

At first I couldn't replicate this. The problem is that you don't have
any package installed and 'pkg ("describe", "all")' is returning nothing
instead of an empty cell array. I guess this should be fixed in pkg instead.

Actually, I'd arguee that it should be fixed so that it returns a
struct array, rather than a cell array of scalar structs but I'm
afraid that may break old code.

If you want to make a big change, the 3.X to 4.X branch jump would be a good time to do it.

I tried to convert the cell array returned by 'pkg describe all' into a struct array, but it failed complaining that not all of the fieldnames were the same.  This might be the reason why each package was grouped into its own cell.

--Rik