Re: [PATCH] find RLIM_NLIMITS correctly on Cygwin

["Daniel Shahaf" <d.s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jun T wrote on Tue, 03 Mar 2020 09:23 +00:00:
> 
> > 2020/02/28 23:19, Daniel Shahaf <d.s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > Jun T wrote on Fri, 28 Feb 2020 17:42 +0900:
> >> 
> >> Currently each test chunk can have flags 'd' 'D' 'q' and 'f'.
> >> We can add a new flag, say 'n', to make the failure not fatal.
> > 
> > If we add a new letter flag, we won't be able to make the non-fatalness
> > specific to only one platform, though.  We a new parameter, we'd be
> > able to do «[[ $OSTYPE == cygwin* ]] && ZTST_failure_is_fatal=false».
> 
> I feel just letting the test fail may be enough,  but if we are going
> to add a new parameter/flag to ztst.zsh then it would be something like
> the patch below.

In this case, how about letting the test fail, as you say?  If in the
future we change our mind about that, we can add the $ZTST_not_fatal
flag then.

> BTW, in B01cd.ztst, line 73:
> 
> #  . d  Don't diff stdout against the expected stdout.
> 
> What does this '.' mean?  Is it just a typo?
> 

It was added in 08f084ecdeaeb19e595441e3e0203be4562bd285 (no X-Seq) by
pws.  The change isn't mentioned in the log message and broke alignment
of the description column, so I guess it was a typo.

>  Test/B01cd.ztst    |  7 +++++--
>  Test/B12limit.ztst | 10 ++++++++++
>  Test/ztst.zsh      | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>  3 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

I reviewed the diff (without out-of-hunk contexts) and have no comments.

Cheers,

Daniel