Confused by regression testing "release" branch summary and unresolved issues
I expect the answer is blindingly obvious, but I've read http://www.boost.org/development/testing.html#Understanding and I don't understand. I'm looking at: http://www.boost.org/development/tests/release/developer/summary.html and: http://www.boost.org/development/tests/release/developer/issues.html I would expect that issues.html would list all the non-expected failures shown in the summary.html page, but it doesn't. (Even tough that's what the "Purpose" seems to claim.) The are a raft of gcc 4.4 failures (not marked as expected - some of them should be, btw), but there are no gcc 4.4 failures at all shown on the issues.html page. What is the relationship between these two pages? Is it documented anywhere? Is it actually an issue that the release has quite a lot of unresolved issues for gcc 4.4? Phil -- Phil Richards, <news@derived-software.ltd.uk>
Phil Richards wrote:
What is the relationship between these two pages? Is it documented anywhere?
I think that issues.html might only be displaying issues from compilers that are marked as 'required platforms' (those being the ones whose names appear in bold on summary.html). The compiler list looks a bit out of date though. Phil Richards wrote:
Is it actually an issue that the release has quite a lot of unresolved issues for gcc 4.4?
Most of those failures only occur when the compiler is in c++0x mode, though the failures in GIL do look to be down to bug #3041, which doesn't seem to have been merged to Release. -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Confused-by-regression-testing-%22release%22-branch-su... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Wed, 2009-11-04 at 15:38 -0800, Richard Webb wrote:
Phil Richards wrote:
What is the relationship between these two pages? Is it documented anywhere? I think that issues.html might only be displaying issues from compilers that are marked as 'required platforms' (those being the ones whose names appear in bold on summary.html). The compiler list looks a bit out of date though.
It certainly looks out of date with regards the release note for 1.41.0. It looks to me as if all the compilers listed on the current summary.html for the release are "primary platforms", and I don't understand, therefore, why they aren't all highlighted in bold, and why they don't appear on the "unresolved issues" page. Is there something I'm missing? Not knowing what errors to expect from the release makes it hard for people who wish to test the beta: I don't know whether the errors I'm seeing *are* expected or not. Phil -- Phil Richards, <news@derived-software.ltd.uk>
Phil Richards <news <at> derived-software.ltd.uk> writes:
It certainly looks out of date with regards the release note for 1.41.0.
It looks to me as if all the compilers listed on the current summary.html for the release are "primary platforms", and I don't understand, therefore, why they aren't all highlighted in bold, and why they don't appear on the "unresolved issues" page.
The explicit-failures-markup.xml on the release branch lists the following compilers as 'required' : acc darwin-4.0.1 gcc-4.1.2_sunos_i86pc gcc-4.1.3_linux gcc-4.2.1 gcc-4.2.1_hpux_ia64 gcc-4.2.1_linux_x86_64 intel-linux-9.0 intel-vc8-win-10.0 intel-win-10.0 msvc-7.1 msvc-8.0 msvc-8.0_64 Which is a bit out of step with the compilers that are actually being tested on that branch. Looks like it would be usefull to reconsider this list.
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Richard Webb <richard.webb@boldonjames.com> wrote:
Phil Richards <news <at> derived-software.ltd.uk> writes:
It certainly looks out of date with regards the release note for 1.41.0.
It looks to me as if all the compilers listed on the current summary.html for the release are "primary platforms", and I don't understand, therefore, why they aren't all highlighted in bold, and why they don't appear on the "unresolved issues" page.
The explicit-failures-markup.xml on the release branch lists the following compilers as 'required' :
acc darwin-4.0.1 gcc-4.1.2_sunos_i86pc gcc-4.1.3_linux gcc-4.2.1 gcc-4.2.1_hpux_ia64 gcc-4.2.1_linux_x86_64 intel-linux-9.0 intel-vc8-win-10.0 intel-win-10.0 msvc-7.1 msvc-8.0 msvc-8.0_64
Which is a bit out of step with the compilers that are actually being tested on that branch. Looks like it would be usefull to reconsider this list.
Agreed. I'll update it. --Beman
participants (3)
-
Beman Dawes -
Phil Richards -
Richard Webb