ccmtools-devel

[ccmtools-devel] C++ test status

[Leif J. <le...@am...>]

Hi all -

These are the results when I do the C++ tests (I got this by doing `make
check > /tmp/ccmtools.log 2>&1' and then doing `grep 'PASS\|FAIL'
/tmp/ccmtools/log') :

PASS: help.sh
PASS: version.sh
PASS: attribute_CCM_Test__check_CCM_Local_CCM_Session_Hello
PASS: attribute.sh
FAIL: attribute-interface.sh
PASS: supports_CCM_Test__check_CCM_Local_CCM_Session_Hello
PASS: supports.sh
PASS: facet_CCM_Test__check_CCM_Local_CCM_Session_Hello
PASS: facet.sh
PASS: receptacle_CCM_Test__check_CCM_Local_CCM_Session_Hello
PASS: receptacle.sh
FAIL: receptacle_not_connected_CCM_Test__check_CCM_Local_CCM_Session_Hello
PASS: receptacle_not_connected_CCM_Test__check_CCM_Session_Hello
FAIL: receptacle_not_connected.sh
PASS: receptacle_multiple_CCM_Test__check_CCM_Local_CCM_Session_Hello
PASS: receptacle_multiple.sh
PASS: attribute_basic_types_CCM_Test__check_CCM_Local_CCM_Session_Hello
PASS: attribute_basic_types.sh
PASS: supports_basic_types_CCM_Test__check_CCM_Local_CCM_Session_Hello
PASS: supports_basic_types.sh
PASS: facet_basic_types_CCM_Test__check_CCM_Local_CCM_Session_Hello
PASS: facet_basic_types.sh
PASS: receptacle_basic_types_CCM_Test__check_CCM_Local_CCM_Session_Hello
PASS: receptacle_basic_types.sh
PASS: home_basic_types_CCM_Test__check_CCM_Local_CCM_Session_Hello
PASS: home_basic_types.sh
PASS: attribute_user_types_CCM_Test__check_CCM_Local_CCM_Session_Hello
PASS: attribute_user_types.sh
FAIL: supports_user_types_CCM_Test__check_CCM_Local_CCM_Session_Hello
FAIL: supports_user_types.sh
FAIL: facet_user_types_CCM_Test__check_CCM_Local_CCM_Session_Hello
FAIL: facet_user_types.sh
PASS: receptacle_user_types_CCM_Test__check_CCM_Local_CCM_Session_Hello
PASS: receptacle_user_types.sh
PASS: home_user_types_CCM_Test__check_CCM_Local_CCM_Session_Hello
PASS: home_user_types.sh
PASS: supports_exception_CCM_Test__check_CCM_Local_CCM_Session_Hello
PASS: supports_exception.sh
PASS: facet_exception_CCM_Test__check_CCM_Local_CCM_Session_Hello
PASS: facet_exception.sh
PASS: receptacle_exception_CCM_Test__check_CCM_Local_CCM_Session_Hello
PASS: receptacle_exception.sh
PASS: home_exception_CCM_Test__check_CCM_Local_CCM_Session_Hello
PASS: home_exception.sh
FAIL: supports-inheritance.sh
FAIL: facet-inheritance.sh
FAIL: receptacle-inheritance.sh
PASS: home_factory_CCM_Test__check_CCM_Local_CCM_Session_Hello
PASS: home_factory.sh
FAIL: home-factory-interface.sh
PASS: include_CCM_Test__check_CCM_Local_CCM_Session_Hello
PASS: include.sh
PASS: include_dir_CCM_Test__check_CCM_Local_CCM_Session_Hello
PASS: include_dir.sh
PASS: include_nested_CCM_Test__check_CCM_Local_CCM_Session_Hello
PASS: include_nested.sh
PASS: module_CCM_Test__check_CCM_Local_WORLD_CCM_Session_Hello
PASS: module.sh
PASS: module-nested_CCM_Test__check_CCM_Local_WORLD_Europe_austria_CCM_Session_Hello
PASS: module-nested.sh
PASS: module-reopen_CCM_Test__check_CCM_Local_WORLD_CCM_Session_Hello
PASS: module-reopen.sh
FAIL: module_mixed.sh
PASS: Calculator_CCM_Test__check_CCM_Local_CCM_Session_Calculator
PASS: Calculator_CCM_Test__check_CCM_Local_CCM_Session_Display
PASS: Calculator_CCM_Test__check_CCM_Local_CCM_Session_IntegerCalculator
PASS: calculator.sh
PASS: owudb.sh

Lots of passes ! Still some failures though. :(

So, some notes :

- attribute-interface and home-factory-interface : Fail because they try
  to pass an interface as a parameter, which doesn't work in C++ with
  abstract base classes. Waiting for smartptr++.

- receptacle_not_connected : Fails because one of its _check_*.cc files
  does `assert(false)'. Other than this check, everything (generation,
  compilation, etc.) works fine. Should we put this test in XFAIL
  instead of TEST, since we expect it to fail ? Does Confix provide
  automatic handling for XFAIL tests ?

- {supports|facet}_user_types : Fail because one of the operations
  apparently doesn't do the expected task. Note that the code generates
  and compiles, it's just the component checks that fail on `assert
  (Array_r.at(i) == i)'. I looked at the code but couldn't find anything
  obviously wrong. Any help here ?

- module_mixed : Fails for some unknown reason when parsing the
  generated idl3mirror files. Any suggestions ?

- supports-inheritance, facet-inheritance, receptacle-inheritance : Fail
  because interfaces don't automatically include operations from base
  interfaces when traversing the metamodel graph. So components that
  involve an interface that has base interfaces (whew !) end up having
  pure virtual operations in generated C++ code.

This last issue is a somewhat serious bug. I'm actually thinking about a
slight Metamodel change that could fix this---a call to
iface.getContentss() could automatically include operations from base
interfaces ... any thoughts ?

Cheers,

leif

--
Leif Morgan Johnson : http://ambient.2y.net/leif/

Re: [ccmtools-devel] C++ test status

[Joerg F. <jf...@sa...>]

>>>>> "Leif" == Leif Johnson <le...@am...> writes:

Leif> - receptacle_not_connected : Fails because one of its _check_*.cc files
Leif>   does `assert(false)'. Other than this check, everything (generation,
Leif>   compilation, etc.) works fine. Should we put this test in XFAIL
Leif>   instead of TEST, since we expect it to fail ? Does Confix provide
Leif>   automatic handling for XFAIL tests ?

Not yet. I just filed a feature request,
though. https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=827331&group_id=68975&atid=523022

Joerg

Re: [ccmtools-devel] C++ test status

[Leif J. <le...@am...>]

Word.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Egon Teiniker wrote:

> I fixed the bugs in the following tests:
> *) receptacle_not_connected.sh
> *) supports_user_types.sh
> *) facet_user_types.sh

Rock !

> Thus, the result of make check is:
>  6 of 37 tests failed
>   FAIL: attribute-interface.sh
>   FAIL: supports-inheritance.sh
>   FAIL: facet-inheritance.sh
>   FAIL: receptacle-inheritance.sh
>   FAIL: home-factory-interface.sh
>   FAIL: module_mixed.sh

Success : 83.78 % (for Kristian). I'm working on the -inheritance.sh
tests. The module_mixed.sh test baffles me.

> I will do the smartpointer++ stuff tomorrow. Today I did not have the
> time because I produced some hot air...

Excellent. (Not the hot air, but the smartpointer stuff.)

> PS: Have you hacked Confix to add a --quiet option? The ccmtools-c++-*
> scripts did not work on my box using Confix-1.3pre11.

Oops. I just checked in the changes to Confix. :-}

leif

--
Leif Morgan Johnson : http://ambient.2y.net/leif/

Re: [ccmtools-devel] C++ test status

[Leif J. <le...@am...>]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Joerg Faschingbauer wrote:

> >>>>> "Leif" =3D=3D Leif Johnson <le...@am...> writes:
>
> Leif> - receptacle_not_connected : Fails because one of its _check_*.cc f=
iles
> Leif>   does `assert(false)'. Other than this check, everything (generati=
on,
> Leif>   compilation, etc.) works fine. Should we put this test in XFAIL
> Leif>   instead of TEST, since we expect it to fail ? Does Confix provide
> Leif>   automatic handling for XFAIL tests ?
>
> Not yet. I just filed a feature request,
> though. https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=3Ddetail&aid=3D827=
331&group_id=3D68975&atid=3D523022

At the risk of breaking Confix again today, I've implemented what looks
like a solution to me. Patch attached, though I haven't tested it. Let
me know if it's ok to check this in.

Now we just have to figure out a way to generate _xfail_check*.cc files
=66rom the CCM Tools. :-(

leif

--
Leif Morgan Johnson : http://ambient.2y.net/leif/

Re: [Confix-devel] Re: [ccmtools-devel] C++ test status

[Joerg F. <jf...@sa...>]

>>>>> "Leif" == Leif Johnson <le...@am...> writes:

Leif> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Joerg Faschingbauer wrote:
>> >>>>> "Leif" == Leif Johnson <le...@am...> writes:
>> 
Leif> - receptacle_not_connected : Fails because one of its _check_*.cc files
Leif> does `assert(false)'. Other than this check, everything (generation,
Leif> compilation, etc.) works fine. Should we put this test in XFAIL
Leif> instead of TEST, since we expect it to fail ? Does Confix provide
Leif> automatic handling for XFAIL tests ?
>> 
>> Not yet. I just filed a feature request,
>> though. https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=827331&group_id=68975&atid=523022

Leif> At the risk of breaking Confix again today, I've implemented what looks
Leif> like a solution to me. Patch attached, though I haven't tested it. Let
Leif> me know if it's ok to check this in.

Doesn't smell like breakage, at least as long as we don't see any
_xfail_check*.cc files :-)

When you've checked it in, could you please add a comment to the
feature request? Just a reminder that there is a
BuildableModule.add_am_xfail_check_program() method already, nothing
more.

Thanks,
Joerg