E02xtrace test failed

E02xtrace test failed

[Vin Shelton]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 733 bytes --]

Daniel et al -

With today's build, I'm seeing a failure on the E02xtrace test:

../../../src/zsh-2020-03-22/Test/E01options.ztst: all tests successful.
../../../src/zsh-2020-03-22/Test/E02xtrace.ztst: starting.
Test ../../../src/zsh-2020-03-22/Test/E02xtrace.ztst failed: bad status 1,
expected 0 from:
 function -T -- -T { echo trace function literally named "-T" }
 -T
 function -T -- { echo trace anonymous function }
 functions -- -- # no output
Error output:
+-T:0> echo trace function literally named -T
+(anon):0> echo trace anonymous function
Was testing: define traced function: parse test
../../../src/zsh-2020-03-22/Test/E02xtrace.ztst: test failed.

Please let me know if you need further investigation.

Regards,
  Vin

Re: E02xtrace test failed

[Peter Stephenson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 273 bytes --]

On Sun, 2020-03-22 at 10:12 -0400, Vin Shelton wrote:
> Daniel et al -
> 
> With today's build, I'm seeing a failure on the E02xtrace test:

I believe it's simply the status that's wrong --- the status is
indeed 1 if no function matches, which is the correct result.

pws


[-- Attachment #2: status.dif --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 450 bytes --]

diff --git a/Test/E02xtrace.ztst b/Test/E02xtrace.ztst
index 8b9cc89a8..25173b2e8 100644
--- a/Test/E02xtrace.ztst
+++ b/Test/E02xtrace.ztst
@@ -203,7 +203,7 @@
  -T
  function -T -- { echo trace anonymous function }
  functions -- -- # no output
-0:define traced function: parse test
+1:define traced function: parse test
 ?+-T:0> echo trace function literally named -T
 >trace function literally named -T
 ?+(anon):0> echo trace anonymous function

Re: E02xtrace test failed

[Daniel Shahaf]

Peter Stephenson wrote on Sun, 22 Mar 2020 18:53 +0000:
> On Sun, 2020-03-22 at 10:12 -0400, Vin Shelton wrote:
> > Daniel et al -
> > 
> > With today's build, I'm seeing a failure on the E02xtrace test:  
> 
> I believe it's simply the status that's wrong --- the status is
> indeed 1 if no function matches, which is the correct result.

Thank you both.  I distinctly remember running tests on that series
before posting it; I wonder what went awry…