-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.4k
A few minor fixes in roottest #20832
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
Conversation
guitargeek
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM!
pcanal
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks.
Test Results 23 files 23 suites 4d 0h 57m 11s ⏱️ Results for commit 90fa494. ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results. |
Macros are invoked with -e "#define xxx", but this list was not cleared, leading to a growing list of repeated defines when a test consists of multiple macros.
Since roottest-root-io-newstl-nolib is marked WILLFAIL, it was not noticed in root-project#18859 that e60640c introduced a function that does not exist. The test still fails, but that's a different issue to be investigated.
0c6404f to
90fa494
Compare
The 'best' action is to solve the problem of course :). Short of this we should make sure that there is an issue tracking the underlying problem (creating if not present yet, it could also be in JIRA) and keep the test as WILL FAIL (the intent there is that is a cheap way to be notified when we 'unintentionally' fix the issue. (The downside is indeed, the test decay where it can not tell whether we are seeing the original issue or something else :( ). |
While tracing the problems addressed in #20818, I stumbled over a few small errors / warnings, which are fixed here.
What's a bit worrying is the test
roottest-root-io-newstl-nolib:When it was ported and re-enabled by @linev, it was already failing, see 1795466.
Afterwards, a non-existing function call was introduced in #18859, e60640c, such that the macro couldn't even be interpreted, any more. Due to the WILLFAIL annotation, this wasn't noticed.
Now we are back to the macro being interpreted, and failing during TTree::Scan with:
What should be the best action? Create an issue or disable/remove the test? @dpiparo @pcanal maybe?