 |
Abigail |
at Oct 11, 2008 at 6:18 pm
|
⇧ | 
| |
On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 11:47:06AM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:Moritz Lenz wrote:
Abigail wrote:
While trying to add a test for a regexp that causes a segfault,
I added a line to t/op/re_tests, with a 'B' in the third column,
expecting the test to be skipped.
Running ./perl -MTestInit t/op/regexp.t ended in a segfault.
Looking at the code in regexp.t, it seems that regardless of the
third column, every line with a pattern and a subject will cause
the pattern to be matched against the subject. "Skipping" just means
"report ok, regardless of the actual result".
Is this intentional? If not, I'll fix it to really skip matches.
If yes, what's the appropriate way to write a TODO test for a
pattern that causes a segfault?
IMHO it would be helpful to have both skip and TODO available. TODO
tests have the huge advantage that they you notice immediately when they
start passing, so I would only mark those tests as skip that really
cause harm when run.
test.pl has "todo_skip" which combines the "don't run the code" nature of a
SKIP with the "its a bug" nature of TODO.
But for segfaulting tests there is fresh_perl_is() and fresh_perl_like() which
executes the code as a one-liner and checks the output. For example, in
t/op/universal.t
# This segfaulted in a blead.
fresh_perl_is('package Foo; Foo->VERSION; print "ok"', 'ok');
I tried this, with the fresh_perl_is in t/test.pl. However, it turns out
that the program aborts during exit, so
fresh_perl_is ('";" =~ /(?<a>(?|(?<b>;)))/ and print $&', ';')
thinks everything went well - the program prints out ';' before aborting,
and while _fresh_perl() takes notice of $?, it only uses this in a diagnostic
message if the output was unexpected.
Short of writing my own _fresh_perl that does check whether $? isn't set,
is there something better I can use?
Abigail
