Home • About Us • A-Z Index • Search * Contact Us • Register • Login • Press • Shop

The Open Brand -- Problem Reporting and Interpretations System

Problem Report 2595 Details

Help Show help | Quick Search | Submit a Test Suite Support Request | Click here to view your privileges

This page provides all information on Problem Report 2595.

Report 2595 Actions

    Problem Report Number 2595
    Submitter's Classification Test Suite problem
    State Resolved
    Resolution Rejected (REJ)
    Problem Resolution ID REJ.X.0690
    Raised 2014-07-08 19:57
    Updated 2014-08-05 14:14
    Published 2014-08-05 14:14
    Product Standard Internationalised System Calls and Libraries Extended (UNIX 95)
    Certification Program The Open Brand certification program
    Test Suite VSU version 538
    Test Identification /tset/CAPI.os/procprim/vfork/T.vfork 9
    Specification System Interfaces and Libraries Issue 4 Version 2
    Location in Spec vfork()
    Problem Summary It's better to output more information in a test case especially in the
    wrong branch.
    Problem Text We have a question about test case /tset/CAPI.os/procprim/vfork/T.vfork
    1. From VSU5.3.8 test case:
    /tset/CAPI.os/procprim/vfork/T.vfork

    2. From function test9A(), we look at the last else statement,
    -------------------------------------------------------------
    else {
    sprintf(ebuf,"ERROR: Child terminated abnormally with signal %s",
    avs_strsignal(WTERMSIG(stat_val)));
    tet_result(TET_FAIL);
    return;
    }
    -------------------------------------------------------------
    3. I think it is better to add a statement as following in order to
    provide more information once the variation failed. If we don't add this
    line, the output for a failed variation and a passed variation is almost
    the same. Look at the results example in TestOutput.
    -------------------------------------------------------------
    else {
    sprintf(ebuf,"ERROR: Child terminated abnormally with signal %s",
    avs_strsignal(WTERMSIG(stat_val)));
    tet_infoline(ebuf); /* add this line */
    tet_result(TET_FAIL);
    return;
    }
    -------------------------------------------------------------

    4. just like the end of statements in function test1A()
    if(pid != cpid) {
    tet_infoline("ERROR: Wrong process id was returned to parent");
    sprintf(ebuf," Expected %lu", (unsigned long)cpid);
    tet_infoline(ebuf);
    sprintf(ebuf," Received %lu", (unsigned long)pid);
    tet_infoline(ebuf);
    tet_result(TET_FAIL);
    }
    5. Other functions in the same test case have the similar problem, such
    as: test10A, test11A,test12A,test13A,test16A etc.

    6. Shall we ask for a TSD for this problem?
    Test Output (1) FAILED ONE
    400|341 9 1 06:48:41|IC Start
    200|341 9 06:48:41|TP Start
    520|341 9 00084018357 1 1|PREP: Obtain CLK_TCK value from sysconf()
    520|341 9 00084018357 1 2|PREP: Eat up 1 second of time in the parent
    process
    520|341 9 00084018357 1 3|TEST: Child process tms_utime is set to zero
    220|341 9 1 06:48:42|FAIL
    410|341 9 1 06:48:42|IC End

    (2) PASSED ONE
    400|341 9 1 07:48:29|IC Start
    200|341 9 07:48:29|TP Start
    520|341 9 00083952654 1 1|PREP: Obtain CLK_TCK value from sysconf()
    520|341 9 00083952654 1 2|PREP: Eat up 1 second of time in the parent
    process
    520|341 9 00083952654 1 3|TEST: Child process tms_utime is set to zero
    220|341 9 0 07:48:30|PASS
    410|341 9 1 07:48:30|IC End

    Review Information

    Review Type TSMA Review
    Start Date 2014-07-08 19:57
    Last Updated 2014-07-08 12:19
    Completed 2014-07-08 12:19
    Status Complete
    Review Recommendation Rejected (REJ)
    Review Response Although these missing tet_infoline() calls are accepted as faults in
    the test suite, they are not grounds for a TSD since the corrected test
    code would still report failure.

    Review Type SA Review
    Start Date 2014-07-08 20:19
    Last Updated 2014-07-08 12:23
    Completed 2014-07-08 12:23
    Status Complete
    Review Resolution Rejected (REJ)
    Review Conclusion Although these missing tet_infoline() calls are accepted as faults in
    the test suite, they are not grounds for a TSD (in this formal system)
    since the corrected test code would still report failure.

    The issues have been passed to the test suite support team to address in
    the test suite.

    Problem Reporting System Options:

     

    Back   

Contact the Certification Authority