r3wp [groups: 83 posts: 189283]
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

World: r3wp

[!REBOL3]

Andreas
19-Oct-2010
[5482]
Yep.
BrianH
19-Oct-2010
[5483x2]
58 is the result of # now being none.
And 75, 101, 102.
Andreas
19-Oct-2010
[5485]
Same for 75.
BrianH
19-Oct-2010
[5486]
112-122 are the result of fixing bug#1602.
Andreas
19-Oct-2010
[5487x6]
128-131 is # again.
AS are 135-137 and 138-141.
And 150-152, 153-156.
Ok, and that's it.
170+ is a erronous paste of mine :)
Well, so that looks like one real regression (complement on image!).
BrianH
19-Oct-2010
[5493x2]
I think that the error codes are checked now. Fix all your tests 
that try to make errors with codes not in system/catalog/errors.
176-180 are examples of this.
Andreas
19-Oct-2010
[5495x4]
Refresh the page.
Or ignore everything past 170.
176-180 == 7-11 :)
Ok, 108 introduces 4 new errors (bad-header, bad-checksum, no-script, 
invalid-port-arg), renames 1 (bad-intrinsic to bad-sys-func) and 
changes the number of arguments for 1 (security-error)
BrianH
19-Oct-2010
[5499]
Then some of the others must have been changed or renamed earlier.
Andreas
19-Oct-2010
[5500x2]
The error IDs in the tests 7-10 do not exist in either A107 or A108.
And the error in 11 was renamed, as stated above.
BrianH
19-Oct-2010
[5502]
Yup. I think that error code checking came in an earlier release.
Andreas
19-Oct-2010
[5503x6]
So those are also things where the testsuite needs to be updated.
Well, maybe those are real regressions nevertheless.
At least the behaviour of error? has changed in this regard.
A107:
>> error? make error! [type: 'foo id: 'bar]
== true
A108:
>> error? make error! [type: 'foo id: 'bar]
** Script error: invalid argument: [type: 'foo id: 'bar]
** Where: make
** Near: make error! [type: 'foo id: 'bar]
I think we had a CC issue for that.
BrianH
19-Oct-2010
[5509x5]
Nope, but the behavior of make error! has changed to actually trigger 
a *different* error if the error codes it is passed aren't in the 
catalog. ERROR? is the same.
ERROR? isn't called in those tests because MAKE error! triggers a 
different error first.
We had a CC issue for that, and the result was adding the error code 
checking to make error!.
The fix was is alpha 98.
was in
Andreas
19-Oct-2010
[5514]
Something changed between A107 and A108.
BrianH
19-Oct-2010
[5515]
A lot changed. What do you mean?
Andreas
19-Oct-2010
[5516x5]
In this specific case.
Ah, I see.
>> make error! [type: 'foo id: 'bar]           
** foo error: (improperly formatted error)
Shouldn't have tested with type: 'script earlier :)
** script error
 and "** Script error" are fatally similar.
BrianH
19-Oct-2010
[5521]
If the error checking of make error! itself is more strict in A108, 
cool :)
Andreas
19-Oct-2010
[5522x2]
So the change is that `make error!` now is strict in what error types 
it accepts.
Yes, exactly.
BrianH
19-Oct-2010
[5524]
Oh, it must have been to error! that was fixed in a98 in the same 
way. Cool.
Andreas
19-Oct-2010
[5525x3]
Or it was "unfixed" somewhen between A98 and A107 :)
Good.
Should be noted on the changelog, though.
BrianH
19-Oct-2010
[5528]
You should add some tests to verify that error code checking. I suggest 
TRY/except as a way to format the tests.
Andreas
19-Oct-2010
[5529]
Hmm, A98 had the same behaviour as A107, for both `to error!` and 
`make error!`.
BrianH
19-Oct-2010
[5530x2]
['error = try/except [make error! [type: 'foo id: 'bar]] ['error]]
That kind of test would help.