Skip Menu |

This queue is for tickets about the Proc-Simple CPAN distribution.

Report information
The Basics
Id: 86319
Status: resolved
Priority: 0/
Queue: Proc-Simple
People
Owner: Nobody in particular
Requestors: hsmyers [...] gmail.com
Cc:
AdminCc:
Bug Information
Severity: (no value)
Broken in: (no value)
Fixed in: (no value)

History Show all quoted text
  Fri Jun 21 21:46:28 2013 hsmyers [...] gmail.com - Ticket created
Subject: All tests through exit.t fail on Windows 7 pro 64 bit
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 19:45:47 -0600
To: bug-Proc-Simple [...] rt.cpan.org
From: "Hugh S. Myers" <hsmyers [...] gmail.com>
From the screen: Building and testing Proc-Simple-1.31 ... cp Simple.pm blib\lib\Proc\Simple.pm C:\strawberry\perl\bin\perl.exe "-MExtUtils::Command::MM" "-e" "test_harness(0, 'blib\lib', 'blib\arch')" t/*.t t/destroy.t .... POSIX::setsid not implemented on this architecture at C:\Users\hsmyers\.cpanm\work\1371863802.1144\Proc-Simple-1.31\blib\li b/Proc/Simple.pm line 250. # Failed test at t/destroy.t line 40. t/destroy.t .... 2/5 # Failed test at t/destroy.t line 53. # Failed test 'check result' # at t/destroy.t line 55. # Failed test at t/destroy.t line 62. POSIX::setsid not implemented on this architecture at C:\Users\hsmyers\.cpanm\work\1371863802.1144\Proc-Simple-1.31\blib\lib/Proc/Simple.pm line 250. # Failed test at t/destroy.t line 84. t/destroy.t .... 5/5 # Looks like you failed 5 tests of 5. t/destroy.t .... Dubious, test returned 5 (wstat 1280, 0x500) Failed 5/5 subtests t/esub.t ....... POSIX::setsid not implemented on this architecture at C:\Users\hsmyers\.cpanm\work\1371863802.1144\Proc-Simple-1.31\blib\li b/Proc/Simple.pm line 250. t/esub.t ....... 1/3 # Failed test at t/esub.t line 21. # Failed test at t/esub.t line 26. Died at t/esub.t line 26. # Looks like you planned 3 tests but ran 2. # Looks like you failed 2 tests of 2 run. # Looks like your test exited with 22 just after 2. t/esub.t ....... Dubious, test returned 22 (wstat 5632, 0x1600) Failed 3/3 subtests t/exit.t ....... POSIX::setsid not implemented on this architecture at C:\Users\hsmyers\.cpanm\work\1371863802.1144\Proc-Simple-1.31\blib\li b/Proc/Simple.pm line 250. Pay particular attention to *POSIX::setsid not implemented on this architecture*. I believe that this would explain the many failures as well as the system hang during exit.t. Being a fellow CPAN author, I understand the nightmare of cross-platform expectations, but surely since you can check the OS in perl a skip test could be implemented? --hsm
  Mon Jun 24 12:07:30 2013 MSCHILLI [...] cpan.org - Correspondence added
On Fri Jun 21 21:46:28 2013, hsmyers@gmail.com wrote: Show quoted text
> # Failed test at t/destroy.t line 40. > t/destroy.t .... 2/5 > # Failed test at t/destroy.t line 53.
Yeah, Proc::Simple won't work until the POSIX module gets fixed to support Win32. "Fixing" Proc::Simple to skip certain tests to prevent the test suite from failing might trick users into thinking it works on Win32. Let me know if you have any thoughts on that.
  Mon Jun 24 12:07:30 2013 The RT System itself - Status changed from 'new' to 'open'
  Mon Jun 24 14:17:33 2013 hsmyers [...] gmail.com - Correspondence added
Subject: Re: [rt.cpan.org #86319] All tests through exit.t fail on Windows 7 pro 64 bit
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 12:16:47 -0600
To: bug-Proc-Simple [...] rt.cpan.org
From: "Hugh S. Myers" <hsmyers [...] gmail.com>
My only thought on that is as the Irish would say "Shite!". Hell of a note when a module has to wait for another module to wake up and smell the coffee... luck :) --hsm On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Michael_Schilli via RT < bug-Proc-Simple@rt.cpan.org> wrote: Show quoted text
> <URL: https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=86319 > > > On Fri Jun 21 21:46:28 2013, hsmyers@gmail.com wrote:
> > # Failed test at t/destroy.t line 40. > > t/destroy.t .... 2/5 > > # Failed test at t/destroy.t line 53.
> > Yeah, Proc::Simple won't work until the POSIX module gets fixed to support > Win32. "Fixing" Proc::Simple to skip certain tests to prevent the test > suite from failing might trick users into thinking it works on Win32. > > Let me know if you have any thoughts on that. >
  Tue Jun 25 02:05:14 2013 MSCHILLI [...] cpan.org - Correspondence added
On Mon Jun 24 14:17:33 2013, hsmyers@gmail.com wrote: Show quoted text
> Hell of a note > when a module has to wait for another module to wake up and smell the > coffee...
That's to be expected with a topic as OS-dependent as process management, I think. And unless you have any smart ideas to get it to work with Win32, Proc::Simple won't support it, as I have exactly zero interest in getting it to work on Win32, which I have no use for ;).
  Tue Jun 25 02:05:51 2013 MSCHILLI [...] cpan.org - Status changed from 'open' to 'resolved'
  Tue Jun 25 08:05:36 2013 hsmyers [...] gmail.com - Correspondence added
Subject: Re: [rt.cpan.org #86319] All tests through exit.t fail on Windows 7 pro 64 bit
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 06:04:38 -0600
To: bug-Proc-Simple [...] rt.cpan.org
From: "Hugh S. Myers" <hsmyers [...] gmail.com>
You know I always used to get upset with modules that didn't work under/on windows since given my client base it is more or less required, but I believe your situation is an excellent example of why someone wouldn't! Has Win64 made any difference? I haven't down low level work in a long while although my programming experience began with the 8080/S100 boxes of long ago (at least in computer terms [actually my first machine was an IBM-360, but don't tell anyone :)]) and back then the question would have been answered with "Process? We don't need any stinking process---there is only one!" I would hope that Win64 might have improved things, but with Microsoft it is never a good idea to hold your breath waiting on necessary features because while blue is my favorite color, it is not a good color for human beings! --hsm On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:05 AM, Michael_Schilli via RT < bug-Proc-Simple@rt.cpan.org> wrote: Show quoted text
> <URL: https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=86319 > > > On Mon Jun 24 14:17:33 2013, hsmyers@gmail.com wrote:
> > Hell of a note > > when a module has to wait for another module to wake up and smell the > > coffee...
> > That's to be expected with a topic as OS-dependent as process management, > I think. And unless you have any smart ideas to get it to work with Win32, > Proc::Simple won't support it, as I have exactly zero interest in getting > it to work on Win32, which I have no use for ;). >