Validating with Haddock

[Mateusz Kowalczyk]

On 10/01/14 10:01, Mateusz Kowalczyk wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have now merged in the new parser and new features onto a single
> branch. I'm having some issues validating with HEAD at the moment
> (#8661, unrelated problem) but while I get that sorted out, someone
> might want to try validating with Haddock changes on their own platform.
>
> The full branch is at [1]. I have squashed the changes to what I feel is
> the minimum number of commits until they completely stop making sense.
> It should apply cleanly on top of current Haddock master branch. The
> documentation is updated so you can read about what changed. Feel free
> to ask any questions.
>
> I will post again once I can confirm that the branch validates for me
> without any new test failures.
>
> Thanks for your patience.
>
> [1]: https://github.com/Fuuzetsu/haddock/tree/new-features
>

This is just a simple follow up to say that the changes don't seem to
break anything new on 32-bit Linux. I provide my validate logs before[1]
and after[2] Haddock changes.

Here's a word of warning: previously, when the mark-up wasn't 100%
clear, we'd get a parse error and no documentation for the whole
package. The new parser no longer does this and instead does its best to
parse and present everything. This means that any Haddock parse failures
should be reported as bugs. As you can see in [1], there were some parse
failures in the past (look for ‘doc comment parse failed’) and they will
now be rendered. This means the documentation might look bad in those
places so it's probably worth while visiting those places and having a
look. On an upside, at least we now have documentation for those packages.

Validation was ran on commit 15a3de1288fe9d055f3dc92d554cb59b3528fa30
including #8661 fixes. Here's the relevant tail of the logs:

> Unexpected results from:
> TEST="lazy-bs-alloc T1969 T3064 T4801 T3294 T5498 haddock.Cabal haddock.compiler haddock.base"
>
> OVERALL SUMMARY for test run started at Fri Jan 10 12:45:39 2014 GMT
>  0:17:23 spent to go through
>     3861 total tests, which gave rise to
>    15072 test cases, of which
>    11547 were skipped
>
>       28 had missing libraries
>     3432 expected passes
>       56 expected failures
>
>        0 caused framework failures
>        0 unexpected passes
>        9 unexpected failures
>
> Unexpected failures:
>    deriving/should_fail  T5498 [stderr mismatch] (normal)
>    perf/compiler         T1969 [stat too good] (normal)
>    perf/compiler         T3064 [stat not good enough] (normal)
>    perf/compiler         T3294 [stat not good enough] (normal)
>    perf/compiler         T4801 [stat not good enough] (normal)
>    perf/haddock          haddock.Cabal [stat not good enough] (normal)
>    perf/haddock          haddock.base [stat not good enough] (normal)
>    perf/haddock          haddock.compiler [stat not good enough] (normal)
>    perf/should_run       lazy-bs-alloc [stat too good] (normal)
>
> gmake[2]: Leaving directory `/home/shana/programming/ghc/testsuite/tests'
> gmake[1]: Leaving directory `/home/shana/programming/ghc/testsuite/tests'
> == Start post-testsuite package check
> Timestamp 2014-01-10 12:45:36.897842164 UTC for /home/shana/programming/ghc/bindisttest/install   dir/lib/ghc-7.7.20140109/package.conf.d/package.cache
> Timestamp 2014-01-10 12:45:36 UTC for /home/shana/programming/ghc/bindisttest/install   dir/lib/ghc-7.7.20140109/package.conf.d (older than cache)
> using cache: /home/shana/programming/ghc/bindisttest/install   dir/lib/ghc-7.7.20140109/package.conf.d/package.cache
> == End post-testsuite package check
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Oops!  Looks like you have some unexpected test results or framework failures.
> Please fix them before pushing/sending patches.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------

The failures are the same in both logs.

Thanks!

[1]: http://fuuzetsu.co.uk/misc/segfix
[2]: http://fuuzetsu.co.uk/misc/segfixhaddock

--
Mateusz K.