Stl: Issues needed for skipped libcxx tests

Created on 30 Jul 2020  路  20Comments  路  Source: microsoft/STL

The set of skipped libcxx tests in tests/libcxx/skipped_tests.txt contain a number of tests skipped due to STL bugs that have no corresponding GitHub issues. The set of such bugs is included under # *** STL BUGS ***.

We need to open a new GitHub issue for each of the ones below (or link to one if already exists). In addition to clear title, description, test case and expected behavior, we need to add skipped test information in the additional context, so it can be enabled once the bug is fixed. The first two, GH-1112 and GH-1113, can be used as examples.

:heavy_check_mark: Issue Filed

:smile_cat: Fixed

documentation resolved

All 20 comments

  • [x] GH-940

    # STL bug: Missing <valarray> assignment operators.
    
    std/numerics/numarray/template.mask.array/mask.array.assign/mask_array.pass.cpp FAIL
    
    std/numerics/numarray/template.slice.array/slice.arr.assign/slice_array.pass.cpp FAIL
    

Also GH-942, I've added to additional context

 # STL bug: We allow fill() and swap() for array<const T, 0>.

 std/containers/sequences/array/array.fill/fill.fail.cpp FAIL

 std/containers/sequences/array/array.swap/swap.fail.cpp FAIL
  • [x] GH-1004

    # STL bug: regex_traits::transform() isn't following the Standard.
    
    std/re/re.traits/transform.pass.cpp FAIL
    

Thanks @AlexGuteniev. I've added your issues numbers.

Does it make sense to label as libcxx_skip GH-940?
The bug is fixed, and the skip lines are removed already

Does it make sense to label as libcxx_skip GH-940?
The bug is fixed, and the skip lines are removed already

The issue is closed as well. It did affect it at some point in time, so this is only for historical record. I've marked it fixed in the comment

Thanks @fsb4000 - updated above!

Thanks again @fsb4000 :smiley_cat:

Updated, thanks yet again @fsb4000 :rocket:

while (true) { thanks(@fsb4000); }

All done! Thanks @fsb4000 and @AlexGuteniev!

Was this page helpful?
0 / 5 - 0 ratings