World: r3wp

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)

Then some of the others must have been changed or renamed earlier.

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.

Yup. I think that error code checking came in an earlier release.

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.

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

Something changed between A107 and A108.

A lot changed. What do you mean?

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.

If the error checking of make error! itself is more strict in A108, 
cool :)

So the change is that `make error!` now is strict in what error types 
it accepts.

Yes, exactly.

Oh, it must have been to error! that was fixed in a98 in the same 
way. Cool.

Or it was "unfixed" somewhen between A98 and A107 :)

Good.

Should be noted on the changelog, though.

You should add some tests to verify that error code checking. I suggest 
TRY/except as a way to format the tests.

Hmm, A98 had the same behaviour as A107, for both `to error!` and 
`make error!`.

['error = try/except [make error! [type: 'foo id: 'bar]] ['error]]

That kind of test would help.

try/except [make error! [type: 'foo id: 'bar]] [true]

Good, good!

A correctly made error is also TRUE? until it is triggered.

Indeed.

So if the tests succeed on TRUE? conditions, rather than #[true] 
ones, your test will fail with false success. Does your test processor 
check for #[true] results, or does it just standard REBOL conditional 
code?

does it just use

It checks for logic?.

IIRC, but I haven't yet read the code in detail. Given that it was 
written by Ladislav, I suspect it is rather advanced.

Yes, it does indeed logic? test results.

But making the tests a bit more explicit does no harm :)

The changes to error creation came with the fix to bug#1593. I put 
a comment to that effect in the ticket.

While you are at it, please reopen bug#1667 and bug#1679, both of 
which are not really fixed in A108.

I am going through the bugs in numeric order, testing them I have 
reopened a few so far.

You can also mark bug#1645 as tested, works for me.

Unless you are an admin, you shouldn't have been able to change the 
status of CC #1647 even if you submitted the ticket, since it was 
marked built. It looks like that CC bug is back.