Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

switched failing test suites from detailed-0.9 to exitcode-stdio-1.0 #7

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

michaxm
Copy link

@michaxm michaxm commented Nov 16, 2015

... which is to my knowledge still defunct (please correct me, if I am wrong)

... which is to my knowledge still defunct (_please_ correct me, if I am wrong)
@michaxm
Copy link
Author

michaxm commented Nov 16, 2015

See
#4
or rather the gist linked there:
https://gist.github.com/rrnewton/5f8b1db0a3f264ab48b7

@jberthold
Copy link
Owner

Thanks for your PR. Unfortunately, the situation is a bit more complicated:
The three detailed-0.9 tests (alltests, testmthread, quickchecktest) work fine with ghc-7.10, which brings in Cabal-1.22.*. However, they do not compile with ghc-7.8, which comes with Cabal-1.18.
If I put a constraint Cabal >= 1.20 (where the LibV09 module exists), the tests cannot be built with ghc-7.8 either, because the library depends on ghc-7.8, which fixes the Cabal version to 1.18.

I would be more inclined to put your PR on a ghc-7.8 branch than to use it for the main line.
Would that be enough to work with the library?

I have created a branch wip/fixtests where I will try to split the versions that lead to this conflict. Hope to have more time for this, and other things related to packman early next week.

@jberthold
Copy link
Owner

@michaxm Could you please test the code from #8 with your setup?
(switches to Cabal>1.20, works for me with two different ghc-7.8 installations (one clean, one rather custom)
I can adapt your PR to use exitcode with ghc-7.8 and detailed otherwise, but prefer the other variant if it works for you.

@michaxm
Copy link
Author

michaxm commented Nov 24, 2015

Good news, using cabal-install (and sandboxes) this works for me.

Executing the tests with stack won't work out of the box, because the
standard resolution plans are not to be able to find a solution on
these constraints - but if cabal can do it, stack should be
configurable, too, I might try that on next occasion. And the error
message is now a lot more meaningful.

Please use your changes and discard mine, finally a working example
with detailed-0.9 :) .

@michaxm michaxm closed this Nov 24, 2015
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants