-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 79
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.sh
failing due to an incorrect MD5 checksum.
#317
Comments
>>>> "fabionatali" == fabionatali ***@***.***> writes:
Thanks for creating Duc.
I'm just the helper bee! :-) Ico did all the hard work...
I've been trying to run the test.sh test suite that comes with Duc but I seem to be getting the
following error:
$ ./test.sh
report: ok
md5sum: failed
expected:
33e2be27a9e70e81d4006a2d7b555948 /tmp/duc-test.out
got:
38ab7b7d1ec6ac57d672c5618371386d /tmp/duc-test.out
Thank you for the report.
This seems to be due to the --check-hard-links option and the way
hard links are handled under different operating systems. Launching
test.sh across different OSes, I noticed that duc-test.out' may
report one of the following three snippets, where one, two, and
three` are hard links that all link to the same file.
9.8K ├─ hard-link
9.8K │ ╰─ one
9.8K ├─ hard-link
9.8K │ ╰─ two
9.8K ├─ hard-link
9.8K │ ╰─ three
In turn, the generated duc-test.out' file may have checksum,
respectively, 78dbf880ef6917ea665fddb5ebb44428,
38ab7b7d1ec6ac57d672c5618371386d, or
33e2be27a9e70e81d4006a2d7b555948. Crucially, only the first checksum
is accepted as valid by test.sh`, the other two are reported as
failures.
My understanding is that these may be all correct outcomes and that
we should only be testing for the number of files reported - not for
which particular one gets reported? I'm glad to send a tiny patch
for this - but would be glad to get my intuition validated first.
This makes alot of sense. If you can write up a patch, I'll be happy
to look it over and test it out and then integrate it into the tests.
We're very much in a holding pattern here, but glad to know that
people are still using and liking the tool.
John
|
Hey @l8gravely, thanks for getting back to me. I had a go at it with #318 - hope it's ok. |
@l8gravely, sorry, quick follow up and low-priority request. If #318 looks alright and ends up being merged, would you consider creating a new git tag for it? That would make things marginally cleaner when it comes to packaging duc under my OS distribution. Thanks, best, Fabio. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Hi,
Thanks for creating Duc.
I've been trying to run the
test.sh
test suite that comes with Duc but I seem to be getting the following error:This seems to be due to the
--check-hard-links
option and the way hard links are handled under different operating systems. Launchingtest.sh
across different OSes, I noticed thatduc-test.out
may report one of the following three snippets, whereone
,two
, andthree
are hard links that all link to the same file.In turn, the generated
duc-test.out
file may have checksum, respectively,78dbf880ef6917ea665fddb5ebb44428
,38ab7b7d1ec6ac57d672c5618371386d
,33e2be27a9e70e81d4006a2d7b555948
.Crucially, only the first checksum is accepted as valid by
test.sh
, the other two are reported as failures.My understanding is that these may be all correct outcomes and that we should only be testing for the number of files reported - not for which particular one gets reported? I'm glad to send a tiny patch for this - but would be glad to get my intuition validated first.
Thanks, Fabio.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: