In article <5vne82-dk2.ln1@kuehne.cn>, Thomas Kuehne says...
>
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Georg Wrede schrieb am Mon, 6 Dec 2004 18:11:28 +0000 (UTC):
>> I wish the D tests there were in html, formatted with nice colors. It is unreasonable to have each person reading that stuff to adjust the browser on each machine he uses (whether regularly, or just once to show a specific point to somebody at her computer).
>>
>> What makes this request the more reasonable is that D boasts being "html-compatible". So anybody could just download the pretty html and the D compiler will accept that as input.
>
>Have a look at the HTML tests: http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/www/dstress.html#html_comment_01
>
>and scroll down.

Yes! If only we could get those above it into html too. :-)

>FYI I have send Walter several patches that solve most of the HTML FAIL and XPASS tests.

Few can have missed the value your work brings to D!

>> Oh, and I'd like the motivation for having xpass and xfail to be explained somewhere prominently. Like, what the "unexpected" is? Not per test, but in general.
>
>Are you talking about an abstract like in the readme?
>
>If not, suggest some general explanations.

I formulated myself rather badly, sorry.

On the same page, under subheading "^Legend", I'd like to see a definition of what constitutes pass, xpass, fail, and xfail. The others (error, and not tested) are self-explanatory.

There is a reference to the DejaGnu test framework, but a smallish forage there gave nothing concrete in hand. Also the POSIX standard 1003.3 seems to be for paid-only readers.

Pass and fail were easy if they were the only ones. But definition of "unexpected" (for both) is what I'd like to see right there.

To sum it up, all that's needed is an answer to "why do we have the category xpass, and why the category xfail?"

In article <5vne82-dk2.ln1@kuehne.cn>, Thomas Kuehne says...
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
..
>Georg Wrede schrieb am Mon, 6 Dec 2004 18:11:28 +0000 (UTC):
>> Oh, and I'd like the motivation for having xpass and xfail to be explained somewhere prominently. Like, what the "unexpected" is? Not per test, but in general.

Maybe I'm getting slow, but I haven't figured out why xfail is light GREEN?

One would assume that the colors were in order. So, out of the 4 alternatives (pass, fail, xpass, xfail) the worst ( = most bad) result would be VERY RED. The next "baddest" RED, and the least bad would be LIGHT RED, or orange. Pass of course has to be green.

Oh, and the point-of-view here should be that of the compiler
writer (and the community at large), not that of the test writer.
(No disrespect intended!) The reason being that they are the ones
who (hopefully) choose what to tackle next.

I don't feel qualified to even suggest a particular ordering here, be it by difficulty of fixing, "unexpectedness"(?), priority for D 1.0, or whatever else.

-----

ps, using the same prefix for expected and unexpected may go unnoticed for quite some time -- for readers like me, at least.

While writing this, I took another hard look at the coloring,
and I started to suspect that the light green for expected-
failure is because the test writer is happy: the test gave
the result he intended. (So presumably at least the test itself
is ok.) I sure hope I'm wrong.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Georg Wrede schrieb am Tue, 7 Dec 2004 08:57:02 +0000 (UTC):
> One would assume that the colors were in order. So, out of the 4 alternatives (pass, fail, xpass, xfail) the worst ( = most bad) result would be VERY RED. The next "baddest" RED, and the least bad would be LIGHT RED, or orange. Pass of course has to be green.

That's the intention.

> Oh, and the point-of-view here should be that of the compiler
> writer (and the community at large), not that of the test writer.
> (No disrespect intended!) The reason being that they are the ones
> who (hopefully) choose what to tackle next.

I'm trying to use community standards.

* http://www.cs.utah.edu/dept/old/texinfo/dejagnu/dejagnu_2.html

* http://gcc.gnu.org/install/test.html#TOC3

* http://www.kerneltraffic.org/wine/wn20020105_112_print.html#1
 (search for XFAIL)

> While writing this, I took another hard look at the coloring,
> and I started to suspect that the light green for expected-
> failure is because the test writer is happy: the test gave
> the result he intended. (So presumably at least the test itself
> is ok.) I sure hope I'm wrong.

When all hope was gone only the Suspicion remained *g*

Thomas

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.9.13 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBtYBc3w+/yD4P9tIRAosYAKC7iMMY/W0+aVdJqkGlhtV0IRxC/QCeLQFy
L2nWXcEyodp1zi/rDil/Vl4=
=F4DS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In article <srbg82-a93.ln1@kuehne.cn>, Thomas Kuehne says...
>
>When all hope was gone only the Suspicion remained *g*

Thanks, now the Legend seems much clearer!!

georg