You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The conformance test machinery traverses the directory hierarchy looking for directories with no subdirecories and when it finds such a directory it checks that it contains exaclty one .uplc file and loads it, executes it, and checks the result and budget against golden files in the same directory. However, it doesn't check that the name of the .uplc file matches that of the directory, but it does expect the golden files to have basenames that match the name of the directory. Thus if you have a directory called test-123 and it contains test-456.uplc it expects the golden files to be in test-123-uplc.expected and test-123.uplc.budget.expected. This can be confusing if you create a source file whose name doesn't match that of the directory containing it.
This issue emerged after PRs #6627; see also #6659.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
kwxm
changed the title
Conformance can handle test names a bit misleadingly
Conformance machinery can handle test names a bit misleadingly
Nov 13, 2024
The conformance test machinery traverses the directory hierarchy looking for directories with no subdirecories and when it finds such a directory it checks that it contains exaclty one
.uplc
file and loads it, executes it, and checks the result and budget against golden files in the same directory. However, it doesn't check that the name of the.uplc
file matches that of the directory, but it does expect the golden files to have basenames that match the name of the directory. Thus if you have a directory calledtest-123
and it containstest-456.uplc
it expects the golden files to be intest-123-uplc.expected
andtest-123.uplc.budget.expected
. This can be confusing if you create a source file whose name doesn't match that of the directory containing it.This issue emerged after PRs #6627; see also #6659.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: