[PATCH weston] tests: make signal other than ABRT a hard failure

[Pekka Paalanen]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:28:56 +0000
"Eoff, Ullysses A" <ullysses.a.eoff at intel.com> wrote:

> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: wayland-devel-
> >bounces+ullysses.a.eoff=intel.com at lists.freedesktop.org [mailto:wayland-
> >devel-bounces+ullysses.a.eoff=intel.com at lists.freedesktop.org] On Behalf
> >Of Pekka Paalanen
> >Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 7:30 AM
> >To: wayland-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> >Cc: Pekka Paalanen
> >Subject: [PATCH weston] tests: make signal other than ABRT a hard failure
> >
> >We handle FAIL_TEST tests by simply inverting the success flag. The
> >problem with this is, that if a FAIL_TEST fails by a SIGSEGV, it will be
> >interpreted as passed. However, no code should ever cause a SEGV, or any
> >other signal than ABRT. And even ABRT only in the case of an assert()
> >that is meant to fail. We would probably need more sophistication for the
> >FAIL_TEST cases.
> >
> >For now, just interpret any other signal than ABRT as a hard failure,
> >regardless whether it is a TEST or FAIL_TEST. At least segfaults do not
> >cause false passes anymore.
> >
> 
> We use the same test-runner and FAIL_TEST logic in Wayland tests, too.
> This change should be applied there as well.

Yes indeed, but do we want to push this quick hack forward, or
should we make something more robust, like a special
expected_to_fail() kind of variant of assert(), so that we would
differentiate between expected failures and unexpected failures in
tests that are expected to fail?

Well, the answer is obvious, I guess, but I'm busy on the
sub-surface work for now. I'd like to get a draft out before
holidays.


Thanks,
pq