January 2021 - asdf-devel - mailman3.common-lisp.net

[PATCH] Add a TEST-OP-TEST-FAILURE condition for test libraries to sub-class
by Vladimir Sedach 26 Mar '21

26 Mar '21

Hello! I recently wrote a script to run FiveAM tests for one of my libraries on many different implementations on your own machine: https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/uri-template/uri-template2/blob/master/run-t… It would be really nice if I did not have to copy-paste that script to my other libraries, and instead could contribute a generalized version to Roswell (on which the script is based) and have it work for any project using any test library. What I would like to be able to do, for any system: (handler-case (asdf:test-system "system") (asdf:test-op-test-failure (condition) (princ condition uiop:*stderr*) (uiop:quit 1))) The attached patch adds an ASDF:TEST-OP-TEST-FAILURE condition that test libraries can inherit from. I also added the necessary functionality to FiveAM: https://github.com/sionescu/fiveam/pull/58 It should be easy to add similar functionality to other testing libraries. This will make test automation trivial, with few, if any, changes required to systems that use ASDF and the testing libraries. One thing I would like to discuss is which condition ASDF:TEST-OP-TEST-FAILURE should inherit from. It definitely should not be ERROR - there is no error in test-op, or in running the tests; test failures are a regular and expected occurrence of running tests. Also problematic is widespread abuse of HANDLER-CASE to catch any ERROR; I am afraid if signaled from popular test libraries it would break someone's test running code somewhere. WARNING seems like a nice parent condition, but maybe having ASDF:TEST-OP-TEST-FAILURE inherit from CONDITION is a better idea. Thoughts? Vladimir

4 15

Upgrading/Installation Instructions Clarification
by Wilfredo Velazquez 21 Jan '21

21 Jan '21

Hello all, Moving this question from https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf/-/issues/52 To reiterate, I believe that the instructions in https://common-lisp.net/project/asdf/asdf/Upgrading-ASDF.html 'Upgrading ASDF' could use some clarification. I am attempting to run a newer version of ASDF than that provided by my impl. The text I'm having issue with is: > If your implementation already provides ASDF 3 or later (and it should), but you want a more recent ASDF version than your implementation provides, then you just need to ensure the more recent ASDF is installed in a configured path, like any other system. We recommend you download an official tarball or checkout a release from git into ~/common-lisp/asdf/. > Once the source code for ASDF is installed, you don’t need any extra step to load it beyond the usual (require "asdf"): ASDF 3 will automatically look whether an updated version of itself is available amongst the regularly configured systems, before it compiles anything else. First, it says I should download an official tarball. I looked to the best of my ability and could not find one. Even if I had found one, I don't know what I'd do with it. So I moved to the second option and cloned ASDF to `~/common-lisp/asdf/` and built it successfully. I verify that indeed I am running a newer ASDF. However, I noticed `~/comon-lisp/asdf/ext/` includes certain third-party libraries bundled in the repo. These are being prioritized over Quicklisp libraries, and it's causing conflicts. So my question is: May I get clarification on how I may build & install ASDF such that the implementation-bundled one will automatically find the newer version, while omitting the libraries ext/ directory from being picked up? Thanks all! -- Wilfredo Velázquez-Rodríguez

4 10

uiop:launch-program fails to run sudo without -S
by Pierre Neidhardt 21 Jan '21

21 Jan '21

Hi! I'd like to run a "sudo" command from Common Lisp. The following works: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- (uiop:launch-program '("sudo" "-S" "ls" "/root") :input :stream :output *standard-output*) (format (uiop:process-info-input #v1) "MY-PASSWORD~%") (finish-output (uiop:process-info-input #v1)) --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Note that I'm using the "-S" parameter of sudo. From the man page: > Write the prompt to the standard error and read the password > from the standard input instead of using the terminal device. Without it, "sudo" terminate immediately. Somehow, Emacs _does_ support calling the sudo process without the "-S" flag. Try this: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- (make-process :name "dummy" :command '("sudo" "ls" "/root")) --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- and the "sudo" process is kindly waiting for input in the background. Any idea why that is? Is it be possible to do the same in Common Lisp? Cheers! -- Pierre Neidhardt https://ambrevar.xyz/

3 6