bug#21181: Possible bug in test-group

bug#21181: Possible bug in test-group

[Rob Browning]

With 2.0.11(-deb+1-9):

  scheme@(guile-user)> (use-modules (srfi srfi-64))
  scheme@(guile-user)> (test-group "foo" 13)
  <unnamed port>:2:0: In procedure #<procedure 1ca9e80 at <current input>:2:0 ()>:
  <unnamed port>:2:0: In procedure struct_vtable: Wrong type argument in position 1 (expecting struct): #f

Changing the syntax-case to use "body ..." instead of ". body" appears
to fix the problem.

Thanks
-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org
GPG as of 2011-07-10 E6A9 DA3C C9FD 1FF8 C676 D2C4 C0F0 39E9 ED1B 597A
GPG as of 2002-11-03 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4

bug#21181: Possible bug in test-group

[Rob Browning]

Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org> writes:

> With 2.0.11(-deb+1-9):
>
>   scheme@(guile-user)> (use-modules (srfi srfi-64))
>   scheme@(guile-user)> (test-group "foo" 13)
>   <unnamed port>:2:0: In procedure #<procedure 1ca9e80 at <current input>:2:0 ()>:
>   <unnamed port>:2:0: In procedure struct_vtable: Wrong type argument in position 1 (expecting struct): #f
>
> Changing the syntax-case to use "body ..." instead of ". body" appears
> to fix the problem.

Hmm, this may be a local issue.  Feel free to ignore it for now.

Thanks
-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org
GPG as of 2011-07-10 E6A9 DA3C C9FD 1FF8 C676 D2C4 C0F0 39E9 ED1B 597A
GPG as of 2002-11-03 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4

bug#21181: Possible bug in test-group

[Rob Browning]

Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org> writes:

> Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org> writes:
>
>> With 2.0.11(-deb+1-9):
>>
>>   scheme@(guile-user)> (use-modules (srfi srfi-64))
>>   scheme@(guile-user)> (test-group "foo" 13)
>>   <unnamed port>:2:0: In procedure #<procedure 1ca9e80 at <current input>:2:0 ()>:
>>   <unnamed port>:2:0: In procedure struct_vtable: Wrong type argument in position 1 (expecting struct): #f
>>
>> Changing the syntax-case to use "body ..." instead of ". body" appears
>> to fix the problem.
>
> Hmm, this may be a local issue.  Feel free to ignore it for now.

To follow up, it does look like it might be broken, but you can ignore
my suggested fix.

Thanks
-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org
GPG as of 2011-07-10 E6A9 DA3C C9FD 1FF8 C676 D2C4 C0F0 39E9 ED1B 597A
GPG as of 2002-11-03 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4

bug#21181: Possible bug in test-group

[Rob Browning]

Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org> writes:

> To follow up, it does look like it might be broken, but you can ignore
> my suggested fix.

I'm not that familiar with srfi-64, but it looks like the problem (if
it's not expected) is that test-group doesn't handle the case where it's
creating the first group, i.e. no prior test-begin.

In that situation it appears that test-runner-current returns #f,
causing test-result-alist! to fail.

Hope this helps
-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org
GPG as of 2011-07-10 E6A9 DA3C C9FD 1FF8 C676 D2C4 C0F0 39E9 ED1B 597A
GPG as of 2002-11-03 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4

bug#21181: Possible bug in test-group

[Andy Wingo]

Mark, do you have any thoughts on this one?

A

On Mon 03 Aug 2015 06:29, Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org> writes:

> Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org> writes:
>
>> To follow up, it does look like it might be broken, but you can ignore
>> my suggested fix.
>
> I'm not that familiar with srfi-64, but it looks like the problem (if
> it's not expected) is that test-group doesn't handle the case where it's
> creating the first group, i.e. no prior test-begin.
>
> In that situation it appears that test-runner-current returns #f,
> causing test-result-alist! to fail.
>
> Hope this helps