You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
millerresearch opened this issue
Nov 21, 2024
· 4 comments
Assignees
Labels
NeedsFixThe path to resolution is known, but the work has not been done.OS-Plan9TestingAn issue that has been verified to require only test changes, not just a test failure.
The consistency tests are failing because Plan 9 includes a path name in its error strings, so the error returned from invalid operations using different path names will not be the same.
The rename test is failing because Plan 9 only supports renaming files when old and new names are in the same directory.
Note that os tests are also failing in NetBSD after CL 627475, for different reasons.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
dmitshur
added
NeedsFix
The path to resolution is known, but the work has not been done.
and removed
NeedsInvestigation
Someone must examine and confirm this is a valid issue and not a duplicate of an existing one.
labels
Jan 4, 2025
NeedsFixThe path to resolution is known, but the work has not been done.OS-Plan9TestingAn issue that has been verified to require only test changes, not just a test failure.
Go version
gotip
Output of
go env
in your module/workspace:What did you do?
LUCI tests running on Plan 9 builders.
What did you see happen?
Examples from log on plan9-arm builder:
Also:
What did you expect to see?
The consistency tests are failing because Plan 9 includes a path name in its error strings, so the error returned from invalid operations using different path names will not be the same.
The rename test is failing because Plan 9 only supports renaming files when old and new names are in the same directory.
Note that os tests are also failing in NetBSD after CL 627475, for different reasons.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: