[BIOSAL] Travis and failure

[George K. Thiruvathukal]

Well, suffice it to say, with the nanocommit model, I feel like I got a lot
done today.
See below.

On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Boisvert, Sebastien <boisvert at anl.gov>
wrote:

> I pulled your branch. Thanks.
>
> > temporarily modify a test
> >  to fail so I can ensure that the error code propagates back to make,
> and it was successful. Oddly, make is returning 2 when only 1 is returned
> by run-unit-tests.sh.
>
> This is make that is returning 2 when there were errors.
>

​Yes, of course. I totally had forgotten about the make error semantics. It
all makes sense! That's why people should RTFM.
​


>
> From "man make":
>
> EXIT STATUS
>        GNU make exits with a status of zero if all makefiles were
> successfully parsed and no targets that were built failed.  A status of one
> will be returned if the -q flag was used  and  make  determines
>        that a target needs to be rebuilt.  A status of two will be
> returned if any errors were encountered.
>

​Yes!
​


> > Will look into this further, but I did confirm that when all tests pass,
> I get 0 as the result
> >  of make test.
>
> Perfect !
>

​FYI, I have also pushed out a number of nanocommits for you. This includes
the scripts to run examples, application tests, and a few more items as
Chief .gitignore Officer.  We've now got *.log and *.junit.xml on our
.gitignore list. I did not break these out into nanocommits, because it's
abundantly clear we don't want either ever going into a repository.

Well, before I mess something up, i had better call it a night. :-) I'm
looking forward to working on the next version of distributed hello. Then I
should be well on my way to the systolic array. Things are really starting
to make sense.

George
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cels.anl.gov/pipermail/biosal/attachments/20141113/dcabc78c/attachment-0001.html>