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
Test some command line options #10300
Comments
comment:1
Attachment: 10300_cmdline_test.2.patch.gz |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Author: Jeroen Demeyer |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
comment:5
Two tests failed with 4.6.1 alpha3. Are there other dependencies except for #10302 and #10306?
|
comment:6
No, it should work. Which system is that? Please do the following in a shell and post the output:
|
comment:7
Fedora 12 (64bit)
(no output)
(no output)
|
comment:8
Well, I don't know what to make of that output. You're using a different shell ( |
comment:9
Output redirection in tcsh has different syntax. |
comment:10
Replying to @wjp:
Really? That's annoying. I will rewrite the test without any redirections, the test in meant to test whether |
comment:11
I've not got chance to look at this now, but here are a few comments. The csh is considered to be a pretty poor shell - see for example this article about it. http://www.ooblick.com/text/CshProgrammingConsideredHarmful.html tcsh is based on csh. The first 150 or so lines of that article covers the issues of output redirection, which is the issue here. The newsgroup {{{comp.unix.shell}} or the autoconf mailing list are good sources of information. Also http://www.gnu.org/software/hello/manual/autoconf/Limitations-of-Builtins.html is worth a look. Although this particular test may be re-written without any redirections, the probability of something similar breaking elsewhere mush be high. I guess we should create an account using /bin/tcsh as the shell and test the whole of Sage. Dave |
comment:12
Replying to @sagetrac-drkirkby:
I've just installed Let's see what happens... |
comment:13
This is not a big deal, but I would suggest changing the tests from |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
comment:15
I created a new account (csh), and set the shell to All tests passed, with the exception of
which is due to the fact the tests assumes the experimental homology package is installed, so is a bug in the test suite, rather than a test failure. I've not tried the I'll try this patch later. I'm going to look at John's SAGE64 patch first. |
comment:16
Build and test with |
comment:17
Attachment: 10300_cmdline_test.patch.gz Couldn't test optional kash but everything else passed. Code looks good except for a few redundant whitespaces. |
Reviewer: André Apitzsch |
comment:20
The following IPython message when it's run for the first time messes up the IPython test:
The initial |
Apply on top of previous patch |
comment:21
Attachment: 10300_ipython_fix.patch.gz |
comment:22
See #10326 for a follow-up ticket (cleaning up |
Merged: sage-4.6.1.alpha3 |
There should be a new test, say
sage/tests/cmdline.py
which tests that some command line options to./sage
actually work. In particular./sage -startuptime
should be tested to prevent #10293 from happening again.With the current patch, we test
Dependencies: #10302, #10306
CC: @a-andre
Component: doctest coverage
Keywords: command line tests
Author: Jeroen Demeyer
Reviewer: André Apitzsch
Merged: sage-4.6.1.alpha3
Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10300
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: