GNU logs - #21181, boring messages

Message sent to bug-guile@HIDDEN:

Subject: bug#21181: Possible bug in test-group
Resent-From: Rob Browning <rlb@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-guile@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 03:28:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.21181.B.14385724657401 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
To: 21181 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
From: Rob Browning <rlb@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.20.1 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1
 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2015 22:27:34 -0500
Message-ID: <87d1z56ogp.fsf@HIDDEN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: list
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>


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

Message sent:

Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.503 (Entity 5.503)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
From: help-debbugs@HIDDEN (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Rob Browning <rlb@HIDDEN>
Subject: bug#21181: Acknowledgement (Possible bug in test-group)
Message-ID: <handler.21181.B.14385724657401.ack <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
References: <87d1z56ogp.fsf@HIDDEN>
X-Gnu-PR-Message: ack 21181
X-Gnu-PR-Package: guile
Reply-To: 21181 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 03:28:02 +0000

Thank you for filing a new bug report with debbugs.gnu.org.

This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message
has been received.

Your message is being forwarded to the package maintainers and other
interested parties for their attention; they will reply in due course.

Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
 bug-guile@HIDDEN

If you wish to submit further information on this problem, please
send it to 21181 <at> debbugs.gnu.org.

Please do not send mail to help-debbugs@HIDDEN unless you wish
to report a problem with the Bug-tracking system.

--=20
21181: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D21181
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs@HIDDEN with problems

Message sent to bug-guile@HIDDEN:

Subject: bug#21181: Possible bug in test-group
Resent-From: Rob Browning <rlb@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-guile@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 03:35:01 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.21181.B21181.14385728968114 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
To: 21181 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
From: Rob Browning <rlb@HIDDEN>
In-Reply-To: <87d1z56ogp.fsf@HIDDEN>
References: <87d1z56ogp.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.20.1 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1
 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2015 22:34:52 -0500
Message-ID: <87a8u96o4j.fsf@HIDDEN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: list
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>

Rob Browning <rlb@HIDDEN> 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

Message sent to bug-guile@HIDDEN:

Subject: bug#21181: Possible bug in test-group
Resent-From: Rob Browning <rlb@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-guile@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 03:44:01 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.21181.B21181.14385734188878 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
To: 21181 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
From: Rob Browning <rlb@HIDDEN>
In-Reply-To: <87a8u96o4j.fsf@HIDDEN>
References: <87d1z56ogp.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <87a8u96o4j.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.20.1 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1
 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2015 22:43:34 -0500
Message-ID: <87614x6nq1.fsf@HIDDEN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: list
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>

Rob Browning <rlb@HIDDEN> writes:

> Rob Browning <rlb@HIDDEN> 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

Message sent to bug-guile@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#21181: Possible bug in test-group
Resent-From: Rob Browning <rlb@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-guile@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 04:30:04 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.21181.B21181.143857617013094 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 21181
X-GNU-PR-Package: guile
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: 
To: 21181 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Received: via spool by 21181-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B21181.143857617013094
          (code B ref 21181); Mon, 03 Aug 2015 04:30:04 +0000
Received: (at 21181) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Aug 2015 04:29:30 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37691 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1ZM7NS-0003P8-BD
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 03 Aug 2015 00:29:30 -0400
Received: from defaultvalue.org ([70.85.129.156]:58170)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80)
 (envelope-from <rlb@HIDDEN>) id 1ZM7NQ-0003P0-8u
 for 21181 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 03 Aug 2015 00:29:28 -0400
Received: from trouble.defaultvalue.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 (Authenticated sender: rlb@HIDDEN)
 by defaultvalue.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E29F8200F0
 for <21181 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>; Sun,  2 Aug 2015 23:29:26 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by trouble.defaultvalue.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)
 id A387414E08D; Sun,  2 Aug 2015 23:29:25 -0500 (CDT)
From: Rob Browning <rlb@HIDDEN>
In-Reply-To: <87614x6nq1.fsf@HIDDEN>
References: <87d1z56ogp.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <87a8u96o4j.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <87614x6nq1.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.20.1 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1
 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2015 23:29:25 -0500
Message-ID: <8738016llm.fsf@HIDDEN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/)

Rob Browning <rlb@HIDDEN> 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

Message received at request <at> debbugs.gnu.org:

Received: (at request) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Oct 2015 22:50:18 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Thu Oct 29 18:50:18 2015
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44849 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1Zrw1R-00060h-T4
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 18:50:18 -0400
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:42270)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80)
 (envelope-from <ludo@HIDDEN>) id 1Zrw1P-00060X-7Z
 for request <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 18:50:15 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
 (envelope-from <ludo@HIDDEN>) id 1Zrw1L-0002bk-Lo
 for request <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 18:50:14 -0400
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD
 autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:54890)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <ludo@HIDDEN>)
 id 1Zrw1L-0002bg-Il
 for request <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 18:50:11 -0400
Received: from reverse-83.fdn.fr ([80.67.176.83]:57104 helo=pluto)
 by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128)
 (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <ludo@HIDDEN>) id 1Zrw1K-000572-Vr
 for request <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 18:50:11 -0400
From: ludo@HIDDEN (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
To: request <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: retitle
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 23:50:09 +0100
Message-ID: <874mh947dq.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address
 (bad octet value).
X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e
X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----)
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: request
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----)

retitle 21181 SRFI-64: Possible bug in test-group
thanks

Message sent to bug-guile@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#21181: Possible bug in test-group
Resent-From: Andy Wingo <wingo@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-guile@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 08:29:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.21181.B21181.14667569147377 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 21181
X-GNU-PR-Package: guile
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: 
To: mhw@HIDDEN
Cc: 21181 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Rob Browning <rlb@HIDDEN>
Received: via spool by 21181-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B21181.14667569147377
          (code B ref 21181); Fri, 24 Jun 2016 08:29:02 +0000
Received: (at 21181) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Jun 2016 08:28:34 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53353 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1bGMTa-0001uv-0C
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 04:28:34 -0400
Received: from pb-sasl1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.66]:52629
 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <wingo@HIDDEN>) id 1bGMTY-0001uo-Qc
 for 21181 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 04:28:33 -0400
Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1])
 by pb-sasl1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5643018EA6;
 Fri, 24 Jun 2016 04:28:30 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc
 :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version
 :content-type; s=sasl; bh=tIgG+x/pfT0qvYQja+PZt37W9eo=; b=BZim4N
 qIxoVfbdSbdMAdJYFMsb/esdGFVBQKcj4qvr0SEUguM8FSUxu7mb5s/YLkevNYhJ
 QG7q570t3Q9qSjivI3yQZf4LzitYJ5kwEQGV4PzMc37gbqiRWse1zIcm8JXwqaFw
 4+gPCaUp5+FQaameLNJnl9OuW7rbCLs3Xl82k=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc
 :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version
 :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=j9715rjeqtZ6R3A0VMgKj3NwnDdGL3B9
 Z/fmspRrzZtWp5nSnTNbmSD854YTKjlKcU2I3VZf+d+kw49f3esRxyKpYHW83cY+
 9CtxnVf4LbIFWyuwbQcBVo2hF9UTiizgcvDNElSxRgfLPC7ZvTfSzGehRuoPcPC1
 nNsG5cPWZ7Q=
Received: from pb-sasl1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1])
 by pb-sasl1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E79D18EA3;
 Fri, 24 Jun 2016 04:28:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from clucks (unknown [88.160.190.192])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by pb-sasl1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5D81318EA2;
 Fri, 24 Jun 2016 04:28:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Andy Wingo <wingo@HIDDEN>
References: <87d1z56ogp.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <87a8u96o4j.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <87614x6nq1.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <8738016llm.fsf@HIDDEN>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 10:28:22 +0200
In-Reply-To: <8738016llm.fsf@HIDDEN> (Rob Browning's message
 of "Sun, 02 Aug 2015 23:29:25 -0500")
Message-ID: <87oa6rgfdl.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Pobox-Relay-ID: A12FAFC8-39E5-11E6-8FD6-C1836462E9F6-02397024!pb-sasl1.pobox.com
X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-)

Mark, do you have any thoughts on this one?

A

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

> Rob Browning <rlb@HIDDEN> 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

Last modified: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 12:00:02 UTC

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.