Fixes for pending change to test runner. #2494
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The test runner will start reading failure expectations in imported files; until now it only read failure expectations from the main test file. This causes a lot of failure expectations in the co19 tests to be checked that were not previously checked. Some need fixing, which is what this PR does. Some will fail correctly, and are noted below. compilation_t04: "part_0.dart" has no error when used like this, copy to "part_12.dart" without the failure expectation and use that. compilation_t15: same issue as compilation_t04, use "part_12" with no failure expectation in place of "part_0". definition_syntax_t18: "library;" is now allowed, removed the failure test. top_level_syntax_t06: add additional error expectation for missing function body error. Not fixed as the failures seem correct: compilation_t11: will start failing on the analyzer: the CFE reports the issue in part_9.dart, the analyzer does not. definition_syntax_t04: will start failing on analyzer and CFE, library statement is in wrong order and should be ignored, but they treat it is valid and so don't report wrong library name in part. Reserved_Words/*_t12: will start failing on the analyzer, it does not report use of reserved words in "part <word>;" as an error.
|
@davidmorgan thank you for doing this. I uploaded your change in the test runner and checked the failing tests. The results are in the table below
As a result I believe that the tests should be updated in a slightly different way. Please see #2497. It also adds missing newlines at the end of some files. Generally, the upcoming change is very cool! It allowed to discover a couple of analyzer issues immediately. Thank you! |
|
Thanks! If I understood you correctly you intend to land your PR instead of this one, sounds good to me, so I have marked it as a draft. I made some comments on your PR and on the linked issue :) |
|
Replaced by #2497. Thank you |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The test runner will start reading failure expectations in imported files; until now it only read failure expectations from the main test file.
This causes a lot of failure expectations in the co19 tests to be checked that were not previously checked. Some need fixing, which is what this PR does. Some will fail correctly, and are noted below.
compilation_t04: "part_0.dart" has no error when used like this, copy to "part_12.dart" without the failure expectation and use that.
compilation_t15: same issue as compilation_t04, use "part_12" with no failure expectation in place of "part_0".
definition_syntax_t18: "library;" is now allowed, removed the failure test.
top_level_syntax_t06: add additional error expectation for missing function body error. \
Not fixed as the failures seem correct:
compilation_t11: will start failing on the analyzer: the CFE reports the issue in part_9.dart, the analyzer does not.
definition_syntax_t04: will start failing on analyzer and CFE, library statement is in wrong order and should be ignored, but they treat it is valid and so don't report wrong library name in part.
Reserved_Words/*_t12: will start failing on the analyzer, it does not report use of reserved words in "part ;" as an error.