On 19 December 2012 22:44, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19 December 2012 22:15, Chris Muller <ma.chris.m at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Why do you say that's breaking the tests?  If you "Do It" on one of
>>>> the failed MC tests it opens the debugger showing the failed assertion
>>>> even though initials have already been set.
>>>
>>> If the author initials aren't set, you get a FITBM asking for it. The
>>> proper cleanup and restoration of MC's test state will thus not
>>> happen. In particular, MCMockClassA does not get its #one method back,
>>> which later tests expect.
>>>
>>>> These tests weren't failing in 4.3 anyone know what happened?
>>>
>>> People usually don't run tests without author initials? Certainly
>>> these tests have ALWAYS passed on CI, but CI sets the author initials.
>>>
>>> I have yet to see evidence to contradict my hypothesis.
>>
>> Eh, well I just opened the 4.3 release image and ran tests.  It asked
>> for my initials at the beginning and then ran all tests.  Those MC
>> tests didn't fail.  I don't think we can release without understanding
>> what's going on with them in 4.4.
>
> Yes, but did you _fill in_ the initials?
>
> At any rate, theories aside, it _is_ the case that the
> MCMethodDefinitionTest >> #tearDown doesn't restore state correctly.
> Note that this is #testLoadAndUnload test is the test that pops up the
> prompt. Subsequent tests fail because, for at least some of them,
> MCMockClassA >> #one no longer exists. (MCMethodDefinitionTest >>
> #testLoadAndUnload removes it.)

OK right. It's something more than just author initials. Taking the
RC, it doesn't matter if you set the author initials or not. Right,
sorry Glen, you're quite right. My hypothesis is wrong.

frank

>> Would someone volunteer?  I'm currently looking at Dave's SqueakMap
>> patch is needed now but not before and making sure we can, in fact,
>> deploy packages for 4.4 that will show up in SqueakMaps 4.4 list.
>
> Yes, please. I would like some countervailing evidence and/or
> alternate hypotheses.
>
> Nevertheless, these tests definitely run on CI, and definitely pass.
> Have always passed, in fact. It was only glenpaling's recent findings
> that brought these tests to my/our attention.
>
> frank