Re: [perl #39997] [PATCH] PGE P5 Test Cleanup

[Jerry Gay]

On 7/28/06, via RT David Romano <parrotbug...@parrotcode.org> wrote:
> # New Ticket Created by "David Romano"
> # Please include the string: [perl #39997]
> # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
> # <URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=39997 >
>
>
> I've updated the documentation for p5rx.t as well as moved the signifiers for
> skipping or todo'ing a file to the appropriate lines in re_tests. I have also
> updated p5rx.t to use all (960) tests in re_tests, marking tests as TODO or
> SKIP as needed. The sixth column in re_tests is now a description of the
> test.
>
thanks for the effort! however, i don't want to apply this patch as it
is. 're_tests' was stolen directly from perl5's test suite. the idea
is that the test data this file contains is
implementation-independent. therefore, if some other crazy person
(besides patrick) wants to implement yet another perl5 regex engine,
they can use the same test data file, and a harness that is particular
to their implementation.

so, i think it's best to keep the information as to which tests are
todo and which are skip out of the test data file. currently, this
information exists in the test harness, 'p5rx.t', as i think this is
the best place to capture it. i'm glad to see you've expanded the pge
p5 tests to the full 900+ tests in the file, and i'll gladly apply a
patch that does this while leaving the 're_tests' file intact.

while i'm thinking about it, there should be a better way to reflect
todo or skip reason. if you're up for the challenge, it would be nice
to be able to say something like
my %todo= ( # similar for skip
'not yet implemented' => qw< 5 12 35 500 >,
'broken' => qw< 34 63 11 >,
...
);
and have something that decorates the subtests appropriately. that's
not a requirement for the resubmission of your existing patch, but an
extra request. if it doesn't get done this time around, it will
eventually ;)

~jerry

[Jerry Gay]

On 7/28/06, jerry gay <jerr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> thanks for the effort! however, i don't want to apply this patch as it
> is. 're_tests' was stolen directly from perl5's test suite. the idea
> is that the test data this file contains is
> implementation-independent. therefore, if some other crazy person
> (besides patrick) wants to implement yet another perl5 regex engine,
> they can use the same test data file, and a harness that is particular
> to their implementation.
>
> so, i think it's best to keep the information as to which tests are
> todo and which are skip out of the test data file. currently, this
> information exists in the test harness, 'p5rx.t', as i think this is
> the best place to capture it. i'm glad to see you've expanded the pge
> p5 tests to the full 900+ tests in the file, and i'll gladly apply a
> patch that does this while leaving the 're_tests' file intact.
>

i forgot to mention something here... patrick has included the todo /
skip markers in the perl6 regex test file, and i don't think they
belong there, either. these should be factored out into the harness,
as well. i have other plans for those tests, like splitting them up
into seperate files, but that's another story.

i think the best way for me to document all this is to write up some
tickets, so i'll be doing that shortly.
~jerry

[Jerry Gay]

On 7/31/06, David Romano <david....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback, Jerry. I changed the re_tests to not have
> TODO and SKIP in the descriptions. I also changed the documentation
> for p5rx.t to say that @todo_tests and @skip_tests now contain the
> test numbers along with the reason why a certain test is skipped or
> todo'ed. I attached the patch.
>
looks great, david! bonus points for adding the todo/skip reasons.
applied as r13728.
~jerry

[Jerry Gay]

On 7/31/06, David Romano <david....@gmail.com> wrote:

> I made another patch for 01-regex.t to move the todo and skip tests
> out form regex_tests, giving the same documentation as I did for
> p5rx.t. Hopefully this wasn't too soon of a change, considering:

> On 7/28/06, jerry gay <jerr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > i think the best way for me to document all this is to write up some
> > tickets, so i'll be doing that shortly.

> Regardless, I'll try to work on the tickets when you post them.
>
again, great work. applied as r13746. i'll get some tickets in soon.
~jerry

[Paul Cochrane via RT]

Jerry,

Did you get around to opening the tickets you mentioned here? If so, I
think we can close this ticket. If not, do you want to sketch out the
ideas for the tickets you want opened? I can then go through the
donkey work of opening them for you if you want.

Paul

[Patrick R. Michaud]

On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 11:37:48AM -0800, Paul Cochrane via RT wrote:
> Did you get around to opening the tickets you mentioned here? If so, I
> think we can close this ticket. If not, do you want to sketch out the
> ideas for the tickets you want opened? I can then go through the
> donkey work of opening them for you if you want.

My $0.02-

AFAICT, all of the 'todo'/'skip' markers have been factored out of
the p5 and p6 regex test files themselves, so I think it's safe to
close this ticket. Any further improvements to be made to the
tests probably deserve their own tickets, without holding this ticket
open for them.

Pm

[Paul Cochrane via RT]

Resolving this ticket as all the todo/skip markers have been factored
out of the p5 and p6 regex test files, and the patches made as a result
of the initial patch and discussion thereafter have been applied.

Thanks for your help!