From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Delivered-To: chneukirchen@gmail.com Received: by 10.49.96.6 with SMTP id do6csp239576qeb; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:41:18 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of rack-devel+bncBDWM7HMLVIORBPOG76CAKGQELRG76RY@googlegroups.com designates 10.52.19.201 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.52.19.201 Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of rack-devel+bncBDWM7HMLVIORBPOG76CAKGQELRG76RY@googlegroups.com designates 10.52.19.201 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=rack-devel+bncBDWM7HMLVIORBPOG76CAKGQELRG76RY@googlegroups.com; dkim=pass header.i=rack-devel+bncBDWM7HMLVIORBPOG76CAKGQELRG76RY@googlegroups.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.52.19.201]) by 10.52.19.201 with SMTP id h9mr11224267vde.0.1352655678586 (num_hops = 1); Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:41:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=x-beenthere:date:from:to:message-id:subject:mime-version :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=Aek19zr/2yjW4XLnO/Xx9QKU5PyZZsOEJvaU0eu2o7E=; b=mfzqNtCT75/bGakWbBS1fat6t6TTQPXrZcuZfZRkfptfhFkMN37W+QWYTF7DXcPdvI Aa3Vjmt+x8ioli46meykIYm+aF2uQoUKIbjdeFxDcPBcm3s0AJJSuFiWFKpFLcf3vozl S7sjFJfMMwCwR363vgU2dchiWgf3hO/wbgTq5UZlWlrpfnWLSlXnwTRR2Gsm3hwEXqGT Zx1jmOPbUlSModpJwWXgqKKupU+3tFc0AzQcrKfhHSYT8EgG5/jQRlJbfunAS2VtB6St Un8dK1LJPyPVF1lSSLyjdO1SWndPVmdhIBcpuwAQQQCjo3a28+DONcFGrj4+BscxsCVN wmRw== Received: by 10.52.19.201 with SMTP id h9mr3233347vde.0.1352655678429; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:41:18 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: rack-devel@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.229.244.40 with SMTP id lo40ls551705qcb.6.gmail; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:41:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.224.219.144 with SMTP id hu16mr7447859qab.1.1352655677094; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:41:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.224.67.196 with SMTP id s4msqai; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 05:20:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.236.133.131 with SMTP id q3mr201282yhi.9.1352640056512; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 05:20:56 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 05:20:55 -0800 (PST) From: Luis Lavena To: rack-devel@googlegroups.com Message-Id: <0693588c-1dac-4b09-bd4f-5441a6143d49@googlegroups.com> Subject: Running rack tests on Windows (both 1.9.3 and 2.0.0) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: luislavena@gmail.com Reply-To: rack-devel@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list rack-devel@googlegroups.com; contact rack-devel+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 486215384060 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: rack-devel@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_256_27113112.1352640055197" ------=_Part_256_27113112.1352640055197 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, I've started to look into Rack (and its tests) on Windows just to ensure things are running as much properly as possible. I found a few hardcoded values to temporary files (/tmp/rack_sendfile) that is blocking spec_sendfile.rb from executing. Perhaps it will be good to use the system temporary directory instead? Beyond that, and without installing any particular handlers, rack tests results in: ruby 1.9.3p327 (2012-11-10) [i386-mingw32] 583 tests, 1761 assertions, 4 failures, 2 errors ruby 2.0.0dev (2012-11-10 trunk 37612) [i386-mingw32] 583 tests, 1761 assertions, 5 failures, 2 errors ruby 2.0.0dev (2012-11-10 trunk 37612) [x64-mingw32] 583 tests, 1761 assertions, 5 failures, 2 errors See gist for full details: https://gist.github.com/4054864 Do you think tests are incorrectly assuming details of the platform (test is not prepared to run on Windows) or do you think the failures are possible rack issues with Windows? How would you like to proceed? I wanted to get the conversation going before invest more time on this. Thank you. -- Luis Lavena ------=_Part_256_27113112.1352640055197 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello,

I've started to look into Rack (and its tests) on= Windows just to ensure things are running as much properly as possible.

I found a few hardcoded values to temporary files (/= tmp/rack_sendfile) that is blocking spec_sendfile.rb from executing.
<= div>
Perhaps it will be good to use the system temporary dire= ctory instead?

Beyond that, and without installing= any particular handlers, rack tests results in:

r= uby 1.9.3p327 (2012-11-10) [i386-mingw32]
583 tests, 1761 ass= ertions, 4 failures, 2 errors

ruby 2.0.0d= ev (2012-11-10 trunk 37612) [i386-mingw32]
583 tests, 1761 assert= ions, 5 failures, 2 errors

ruby 2.0.0de= v (2012-11-10 trunk 37612) [x64-mingw32]
583 tests, 1761 assertio= ns, 5 failures, 2 errors

See gist for full d= etails:

https://gist.github.com/4054864
<= div>
Do you think tests are incorrectly assuming details of t= he platform (test is not prepared to run on Windows) or do you think the fa= ilures are possible rack issues with Windows?

How = would you like to proceed? I wanted to get the conversation going before in= vest more time on this.

Thank you.
--
Luis Lavena

------=_Part_256_27113112.1352640055197--