Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

S06-advanced/wrap.t in 6.c-errata roast branch fails a test #5332

Closed
p6rt opened this issue May 21, 2016 · 8 comments
Closed

S06-advanced/wrap.t in 6.c-errata roast branch fails a test #5332

p6rt opened this issue May 21, 2016 · 8 comments
Labels

Comments

@p6rt
Copy link

p6rt commented May 21, 2016

Migrated from rt.perl.org#128203 (status was 'resolved')

Searchable as RT128203$

@p6rt
Copy link
Author

p6rt commented May 21, 2016

From @hoelzro

Here's what the failure looks like​:

# Failed test 'right exception type (X​::NoDispatcher)'
# at /tmp/nom/share/perl6/precomp/E329B59A53DA690354B48752DE28FEFA7C5BD5A1.1463791841.84691/C7/C712FE6969F786C9380D643DF17E85D06868219E line 1
# Expected​: X​::NoDispatcher
# Got​: X​::ControlFlow​::Return
# Exception message​: Attempt to return outside of any Routine
# Looks like you failed 1 test of 2
not ok 59 - {nextsame}() dies properly

The failure was introduced by e239f6e. For some reason, changing subtest to a multi sub affects how throws-like evaluates strings, and somehow it affects how the dispatcher is set up for nextsame.

@p6rt
Copy link
Author

p6rt commented May 21, 2016

From @hoelzro

I have a fix in place, but it's not a permanent solution. I'd like to get the bottom of the true cause.

On 2016-05-20 17​:57​:53, rob@​hoelz.ro wrote​:

Here's what the failure looks like​:

# Failed test 'right exception type (X​::NoDispatcher)'
# at
/tmp/nom/share/perl6/precomp/E329B59A53DA690354B48752DE28FEFA7C5BD5A1.1463791841.84691/C7/C712FE6969F786C9380D643DF17E85D06868219E
line 1
# Expected​: X​::NoDispatcher
# Got​: X​::ControlFlow​::Return
# Exception message​: Attempt to return outside of any Routine
# Looks like you failed 1 test of 2
not ok 59 - {nextsame}() dies properly

The failure was introduced by e239f6e. For some reason, changing
subtest to a multi sub affects how throws-like evaluates strings, and
somehow it affects how the dispatcher is set up for nextsame.

@p6rt
Copy link
Author

p6rt commented Jun 15, 2016

From @zoffixznet

It's just a bad test that relies too much on the internal implementation of subtest(). The explanation is here (esp. last few lines with jnthn++'s explanation)​:
rakudo/rakudo#743 (comment)

@p6rt
Copy link
Author

p6rt commented Jun 15, 2016

The RT System itself - Status changed from 'new' to 'open'

@p6rt
Copy link
Author

p6rt commented Aug 23, 2016

From @coke

On Tue Jun 14 19​:51​:08 2016, cpan@​zoffix.com wrote​:

It's just a bad test that relies too much on the internal
implementation of subtest(). The explanation is here (esp. last few
lines with jnthn++'s explanation)​:
rakudo/rakudo#743 (comment)

So can we close this RT?

--
Will "Coke" Coleda

@p6rt
Copy link
Author

p6rt commented Aug 23, 2016

From @zoffixznet

On Tue Aug 23 11​:57​:08 2016, coke wrote​:

So can we close this RT?

After we revert hoelzro's temporary fix (that uses a series of `if/else` in one `sub subtest` in lieu of multi-dispatch) and replicate the fix for the bogus test that's currently in master back in 6.c-errata [or use a better test; I forget whether the use of `subtest` was even needed in that test].

I marked my calendar and will take care of all this on Sept. 10th, unless someone beats me to it.

@p6rt
Copy link
Author

p6rt commented Aug 25, 2016

From @zoffixznet

Test fixed in Raku/roast@ab521517a4

Temporary fix reverted in rakudo/rakudo@547fc5154c

@p6rt
Copy link
Author

p6rt commented Aug 25, 2016

@zoffixznet - Status changed from 'open' to 'resolved'

@p6rt p6rt closed this as completed Aug 25, 2016
@p6rt p6rt added the Bug label Jan 5, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant