[BIOSAL] Travis and failure

[George K. Thiruvathukal]

Thanks!

George K. Thiruvathukal, PhD
*Professor of Computer Science*, Loyola University Chicago
*Director*, Center for Textual Studies and Digital Humanities
*Guest Faculty*, Argonne National Laboratory, Math and Computer Science
Division
Editor in Chief, Computing in Science and Engineering
<http://www.computer.org/portal/web/computingnow/cise> (IEEE CS/AIP)
(w) gkt.tv (v) 773.829.4872


On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Boisvert, Sebastien <boisvert at anl.gov>
wrote:

> I merged your changes.
>
> > From: George K. Thiruvathukal [gkt at cs.luc.edu]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 10:03 PM
> > To: Boisvert, Sebastien
> > Cc: biosal at lists.cels.anl.gov
> > Subject: Re: Travis and failure
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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/20141114/f184686f/attachment.html>