A couple of my findings : - notifications returned are not the same whether you run the tests in batch mode or interactive mode. In interactive mode, there is a deleted notification which is sent when your remove the directory being watched. This event is not seen when running in batch mode (make check). I wonder what could make a difference. - in the test file-notify-test06-many-events to check that events are not dropped : I have to lower the 1000 number. The test fails as soon as I go higher than around 260. Is there some limit here ? Once the limit is reached, only the first notification is returned. - there is this small patch that needs to be applied : diff --git a/test/automated/file-notify-tests.el b/test/automated/file-notify-tests.el index de64f50..51a898e 100644 --- a/test/automated/file-notify-tests.el +++ b/test/automated/file-notify-tests.el @@ -507,7 +509,7 @@ file-notify--test-with-events ;; w32notify does not distinguish between `changed' and ;; `attribute-changed'. ((string-equal (file-notify--test-library) "w32notify") - '(changed changed changed changed)) + '(changed changed)) ;; For kqueue and in the remote case, `write-region' ;; raises also an `attribute-changed' event. ((or (string-equal (file-notify--test-library) "kqueue") Overall, I don't think anymore that the patch by Michael has broken w32 file notifications but rather that the new tests have highlighted some potential problems with it. Regards, Fabrice 2016-02-03 13:15 GMT+01:00 Fabrice Popineau : > > > 2016-02-03 9:07 GMT+01:00 Michael Albinus : > >> Fabrice Popineau writes: >> >> > You will find the commit below (with not too much surprise). >> > However, I don't have much time these days to sort this out. >> >> I'll check next days, need to find an MS Windows machine first. >> >> > Thanks Michael. > > I have observed something weird during the file-notify tests. > I traced file-notify-test02-events. > The read_event function doesn't time out in 0.1s as it is supposed to. > It waits for the time specified by (file-notify--test-timeout) before > returning the right value. (Well actually, the value returned by the third > test > in file-notify-test02-events is wrong but it is another story). > > So I'm afraid some logic is wrong, and possibly not only in file-notify > but also in the way w32 should handle those timeouts. > > Fabrice > >