Re: [PATCH i-g-t 2/5] lib/tests: don't use hard error status to indicate test failure

Thomas Wood
2014-11-03T15:42:28Z

On 3 November 2014 15:02, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 11:31:02AM +0000, Thomas Wood wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Wood <thomas.wood@intel.com>
>> ---
>> lib/tests/igt_command_line.sh | 8 ++++----
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/tests/igt_command_line.sh b/lib/tests/igt_command_line.sh
>> index 7e6ca67..5cf2584 100755
>> --- a/lib/tests/igt_command_line.sh
>> +++ b/lib/tests/igt_command_line.sh
>> @@ -48,20 +48,20 @@ for test in $TESTLIST; do
>>
>> # check invalid option handling
>> echo " Checking invalid option handling..."
>> - ./$test --invalid-option 2> /dev/null && exit 99
>> + ./$test --invalid-option 2> /dev/null && exit 1
>
> Just a curious question: What's better with hardcoding 1 than hardcoding
> 99? Otherwise series lgtm.

From the automake manual:

"When no test protocol is in use, an exit status of 0 from a test
script will denote a success, an exit status of 77 a skipped test, an
exit status of 99 an hard error, and any other exit status will denote
a failure."

So, an exit status of 99 is reported separately in the summary as an
error, rather than as a test failure.

> -Daniel
> --
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx