After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 674805 - gdbusproxy async test is broken
gdbusproxy async test is broken
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: glib
Classification: Platform
Component: gdbus
2.32.x
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: David Zeuthen (not reading bugmail)
gtkdev
: 672248 675088 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2012-04-25 15:18 UTC by Mike Gorse
Modified: 2017-12-13 14:00 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Attachments
Patch. (3.28 KB, patch)
2012-04-26 21:17 UTC, Mike Gorse
committed Details | Review

Description Mike Gorse 2012-04-25 15:18:00 UTC
The gdbusproxy async test creates a proxy asynchronously and then immediately returns. The test framework then takes down the connection, so the async test's callback may never be called. If it is called, it can fail because it expects no error, while an error is set because the connection has since been closed by the test framework. If I modify the test to start a main loop, it then fails because some of the property tests fail because a previous test modified the value of the properties. I talked with davidz on irc, and he feels that the test is broken because it relies on the gdbusproxy test setting up the server, and tests should be able to run in any order and independently of other tests.
Comment 1 David Zeuthen (not reading bugmail) 2012-04-25 15:48:49 UTC
Yup, we should fix that. Thanks for opening the bug.
Comment 2 Mike Gorse 2012-04-26 21:17:47 UTC
Created attachment 212914 [details] [review]
Patch.
Comment 3 David Zeuthen (not reading bugmail) 2012-04-29 18:57:48 UTC
*** Bug 675088 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 4 David Zeuthen (not reading bugmail) 2012-05-02 03:25:43 UTC
*** Bug 672248 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 5 Murray Cumming 2013-01-25 08:30:17 UTC
Could Mike get a response to his patch, please?
Comment 6 Mike Gorse 2013-01-25 17:27:41 UTC
The patch has actually been committed for some time. I may have pushed it by accident in the course of pushing one of my patches for bug 652650.
Comment 7 Philip Withnall 2017-12-13 13:59:57 UTC
Review of attachment 212914 [details] [review]:

(In reply to Mike Gorse from comment #6)
> The patch has actually been committed for some time. I may have pushed it by
> accident in the course of pushing one of my patches for bug 652650.

Indeed, it was pushed as 375943ea215871c0fe6d1d02e970cb2d71c8445c. Nobody seems to have objected in the intervening years, so let’s consider this reviewed and accepted.