Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Test failures related to recent changes #144

Open
samth opened this issue Jun 25, 2021 · 0 comments
Open

Test failures related to recent changes #144

samth opened this issue Jun 25, 2021 · 0 comments

Comments

@samth
Copy link
Sponsor Member

samth commented Jun 25, 2021

Currently, the check-info-test.rkt and standalone.rkt tests fail. We need to decide on a resolution to this issue for the upcoming 8.2 release.

The story here is that we wanted to treat exceptions during argument evaluation of check forms as errors. #109 (a revised version of #107) was merged to do that. That led to bug racket/racket#3410, a regression. That was fixed in #123, but that led to another regression in standalone.rkt. That was then intended to be fixed in #124, but it didn't work, leading to the current situation.

There's discussion of what is wrong in the comments of #124.

@AlexKnauth has a fix for one of the issues in #142 and then blesses the new test behavior for the other failure, but this uses some hackery around the representation of parameters.

After discussing this with @jackfirth @AlexKnauth @sorawee there are a few suggestions for what to do here.

  1. The easiest solution (I think) is merging Fix some failures discovered in PR #138 discussion #142, provided that it really fixes all the tests.
  2. Another approach is to use continuation marks directly for the info stack (instead of parameters) which avoids the hackery in Fix some failures discovered in PR #138 discussion #142.
  3. Another possibility is to bless the current behavior in all cases.
  4. Finally we could revert all the way back to the pre-Treat exceptions thrown by arguments to check as test failures, without changing function behavior #109 state.

My recommendation is to merge #142 and then take option 2 at a later point.

cc @racket/release

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant