test-lots and test-period fixed

Neil Williams linux at codehelp.co.uk
Wed Sep 28 10:07:11 EDT 2005

On Wednesday 28 September 2005 1:47 pm, Derek Atkins wrote:
> Neil Williams <linux at codehelp.co.uk> writes:
> > A few if(!xx) { return;} were needed and a few other tweaks.
> It might be better to use g_return_if_fail(xx) in this spot...

OK, I'll do that.

> I don't see why it would make it any more or less easy.  You can apply
> gdb in either case to the test app and it just works.  I've never had
> a problem debugging the test apps.  But in src/engine I don't think
> it's a big deal.

That's why I did it, we wanted less guile in src/engine and I use these 
routines in cashutil where guile is not available.

> > test-lots now runs without a segfault and all I got is this message:
> > FAILURE engine-stuff test-engine-stuff.c:700 get_random_int_in_range
> > failed but that doesn't cause the test to fail.
> I wonder why?  I also wonder why this is failing?

It's just the randomness, I've run the test several times in gnucash and 
cashutil trees and every once in a while one of the random test generators 
triggers this warning from test-engine-stuff.c.

> > After I got it working, I reduced the number of iterations from 100 to 30
> > so that it took a more reasonable time to complete.
> Define "reasonable time"?

Less than 10minutes on my P3 700MHz.


Neil Williams

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.gnucash.org/pipermail/gnucash-devel/attachments/20050928/20ec85a6/attachment.bin

More information about the gnucash-devel mailing list