Subject: | Test failure on HP-UX |
Running the test suite from Term-Cap-1.16 on one of our HP-UX B.11.23 machines I get:
$ perl test.pl
[...]
Was it intentional to change the behaviour of this expression?
$ perl test.pl
[...]
ok 23 - Tgetent() should die with bad termcap
ok 24 - Tgetent() should catch deep recursion
not ok 25 - Tgetent() should set a single field correctly
# Failed test 'Tgetent() should set a single field correctly'
# at test.pl line 147.
# got: undef
# expected: '1'
not ok 26 - Tgetent() should set another field on the same line
# Failed test 'Tgetent() should set another field on the same line'
# at test.pl line 148.
# got: undef
# expected: '1'
not ok 27 - Tgetent() should set a blank field correctly
# Failed test 'Tgetent() should set a blank field correctly'
# at test.pl line 149.
# got: undef
# expected: ''
not ok 28 - Tgetent() should set a key value pair correctly
# Failed test 'Tgetent() should set a key value pair correctly'
# at test.pl line 150.
# got: undef
# expected: 'v1'
ok 29 - Tgetent() should set and translate pairs
ok 30 - should set _pc field correctly
[...]
The only functional change in 1.16 <http://search.cpan.org/diff?from=Term-Cap-1.15&to=Term-Cap-1.16#Cap.pm> is:
This isn't a valid transformation if you want the outcome of the test to be the same. If I replace the '||' with '&&' it should have the same behaviour as before; and if I do the test is happy again.[...]
The only functional change in 1.16 <http://search.cpan.org/diff?from=Term-Cap-1.15&to=Term-Cap-1.16#Cap.pm> is:
- unless ( @termcap_path || $entry ) + if ( !@termcap_path || !$entry )
Was it intentional to change the behaviour of this expression?