From: Dean M. B. <mik...@gm...> - 2008-09-03 06:44:08
|
Hi Kim, On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Kim Gräsman <kim...@gm...> wrote: > Hi Dean, > > On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 07:47, Dean Michael Berris > <mik...@gm...> wrote: >> >> I think it's all about whether we want to live with the test failure >> in Windows based on a perfectly valid test that exposes a bug in >> Python in Windows. In this case I think it's alright for us to live >> with it -- we can mark it as an expected failure if we're in Windows. > > I don't see how that's an improvement over saving test.xml with > LF-only line endings, and get consistent test results...? I understood > Divye's point to be that if we did that, we would mask something else. > It's not about changing the test data to make sure the tests run, it's more about making sure we get the correct data that we expect from the HTTP Server -- and if I requested for a file that has CRLF line endings in from the server, that I would get the exact same file if I read it from disk in binary mode. > Wait... OK, I think I see what's happening: > > 1) test.xml always contains CRLF, even on Linux > 2) On Linux, the Python server serves test.xml with CRLF endings intact > 3) If we change test.xml to LF-only, we have worse test coverage for > line ending independence > > Is that it? > Yes, we want to make sure CRLF is preserved -- and that the file is intact when sent over the HTTP Server, and received by the client. >> Perhaps a patch to the test to reflect this would be very welcome. :) > > It's included in the patch I sent last night -- in Win32 > configurations the test code strips all CRs from the source text > document. But maybe a dedicated test would be better to demonstrate > this. > I would like to see though a windows-specific flag which sets the expected failures to 1 in the localhost_test case that checks for file lengths. I haven't taken a look at your patch yet, so I'll see what happens when I get to it later. HTH -- Dean Michael C. Berris Software Engineer, Friendster, Inc. |