run tests from el files

run tests from el files

[Phillip Lord]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 284 bytes --]


I would like comments on this patch which I'd like to install on master.

The idea is to run tests of the .el files because they give nicer
stacktraces. I can see no downsides to this, but I don't understand
why the .elc files were used in the first place, so wanted to ask.

Phil



[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: 0001-undo-boundary-always.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 1086 bytes --]

From: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@russet.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 22:34:50 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Fix missing undo-boundary after revert-buffer

* lisp/simple.el (undo-auto--boundaries): Ensure an undo-boundary after
  every command whether it (apparently) changes the buffer or not.

Addresses Bug#23785
---
 lisp/simple.el | 4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/lisp/simple.el b/lisp/simple.el
index b66827d..3110430 100644
--- a/lisp/simple.el
+++ b/lisp/simple.el
@@ -2875,6 +2875,10 @@ undo-auto--boundaries
   "Check recently changed buffers and add a boundary if necessary.
 REASON describes the reason that the boundary is being added; see
 `undo-last-boundary' for more information."
+  ;; (Bug #23785) All commands should ensure that there is an undo
+  ;; boundary whether they have changed the current buffer or not.
+  (when (eq cause 'command)
+    (add-to-list 'undo-auto--undoably-changed-buffers (current-buffer)))
   (dolist (b undo-auto--undoably-changed-buffers)
           (when (buffer-live-p b)
             (with-current-buffer b
-- 
2.8.4

Re: run tests from el files

[Robert Weiner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 868 bytes --]

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@russet.org.uk>
wrote:

>
> I would like comments on this patch which I'd like to install on master.
>
> The idea is to run tests of the .el files because they give nicer
> stacktraces. I can see no downsides to this, but I don't understand
> why the .elc files were used in the first place, so wanted to ask.
>

​I would think you would want to test both .el and .elc behavior since if
there is an issue in​

​byte-compilation, it is possible an assertion might fail there while not
failing in the source (and tests of the byte-compiler might have missed the
issue).  Only the .elc behavior will be seen in production, so you want to
be sure that is producing correct results but it certainly would be nice to
get easy-to-read stack traces during any first pass testing.

Bob
​

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1874 bytes --]

Re: run tests from el files

[Phillip Lord]

Robert Weiner <rsw@gnu.org> writes:

> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@russet.org.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I would like comments on this patch which I'd like to install on master.
>>
>> The idea is to run tests of the .el files because they give nicer
>> stacktraces. I can see no downsides to this, but I don't understand
>> why the .elc files were used in the first place, so wanted to ask.
>>
>
> ​I would think you would want to test both .el and .elc behavior since if
> there is an issue in​
>
> ​byte-compilation, it is possible an assertion might fail there while not
> failing in the source (and tests of the byte-compiler might have missed the
> issue).  Only the .elc behavior will be seen in production, so you want to
> be sure that is producing correct results but it certainly would be nice to
> get easy-to-read stack traces during any first pass testing.

This is only the *tests* that I am not byte-compiling (or rather not
loading), and they are not there in production at all.

Phil

Re: run tests from el files

[Robert Weiner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 840 bytes --]

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 5:47 PM, Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@russet.org.uk>
wrote:

> Robert Weiner <rsw@gnu.org> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Phillip Lord <
> phillip.lord@russet.org.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I would like comments on this patch which I'd like to install on master.
>
> > ​I would think you would want to test both .el and .elc behavior since if
> > there is an issue in​
>
> This is only the *tests* that I am not byte-compiling (or rather not
> loading), and they are not there in production at all.
>
> ​Okay, I see now, that just was not what you wrote.  So you would still
see byte-coded information from the production files and would just not see
them from any code within your test files.  That would obviously help some
but not solve this issue more broadly.

Bob

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1922 bytes --]

Re: run tests from el files

[Noam Postavsky]

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Phillip Lord
<phillip.lord@russet.org.uk> wrote:
>
> I would like comments on this patch which I'd like to install on master.

I think you posted the wrong patch.