On 23 Oct 2010, at 15:08, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
> On 10/23/2010 04:04 PM, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
>> On 10/23/2010 11:33 AM, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
>>> On 10/23/2010 12:21 AM, Mathieu Gagn=E9 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Tests are both resulting in the same errors and failures.
>>>>
>>>> Am I missing libraries or did I miss steps?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've moved code around and not catered to Ton's tests when I went =20=
>>> on my
>>> reorganization spree, so it's likely that particular tree is =20
>>> broken wrt
>>> testing.
>>>
>>> I'll see if I can get around to fixing it today.
>>>
>>
>> Well, lo and behold. Tests run just fine for me now, and I managed to
>> push the outstanding patches to the public CVS stuff. I even found a
>> bug I'd introduced thanks to Ton's awesome tests
>>
>
> Bleh. I spoke too soon. Fix coming up in a couple of minutes.
Fantastic! I can see tinderbox is back to green: =
http://tinderbox.nagios.org/nagios/status.html
Re: test_checks, which I notice you've changed from including the main =20=
source. I had an idea to try a different technique (include the =20
source, but override some specific functions), but I couldn't redefine =20=
functions in C without the compiler complaining. The aim was to try =20
and isolate specific functions by mocking other function calls to do =20
more scenario-based/complicated testing. I'd welcome any ideas on how =20=
to do this better.
Ton
This post was automatically imported from historical nagios-devel mailing list archives
Original poster: [email protected]