Validating with Haddock

[Austin Seipp]

Hi Mateusz,

I've pushed your work and tweaked the testsuite performance numbers on
64bit. The 32bit ones are out of date, but I'll fix them shortly.

I also fixed some of the documentation errors.

Thanks for all your hard work.

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Mateusz Kowalczyk
<fuuzetsu at fuuzetsu.co.uk> wrote:
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>



-- 
Regards,

Austin Seipp, Haskell Consultant
Well-Typed LLP, http://www.well-typed.com/