Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Question: How to handle the new error checking in Tcl #4

Open
tmtvl opened this issue Jun 17, 2017 · 2 comments
Open

Question: How to handle the new error checking in Tcl #4

tmtvl opened this issue Jun 17, 2017 · 2 comments

Comments

@tmtvl
Copy link

tmtvl commented Jun 17, 2017

A little over a year ago the following message popped up in the Debian bug tracker:

This seems to be caused by a recent change in libtcl-perl, which grew
a Tcl::Code::DESTROY method; it looks like the error doesn't refer to
the calling script (t/tcl.t) any more but to the module.
Not sure if we should just relax the test or if there's something to
be done in Tcl (all those warnings about DeleteCommand, also in the
same new method, don't like good either).

source

The question now is whether we should adapt our test to the update in Tcl, or whether we should have them update their code.
@chrstphrchvz
Copy link

Related issue on RT: https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=115662

Also see PR #2

chrstphrchvz added a commit to chrstphrchvz/tkx that referenced this issue Feb 6, 2021
@chrstphrchvz
tcl.t: mark failing test as TODO
12aefa7 
Failure likely caused by changes in Tcl.pm. This is a minor issue,
and not a reason to prevent users from installing Tkx.

See: https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=115662, gisle#4, gisle#7
@chrstphrchvz
Copy link

I've published Tkx 1.10 which ignores the test failure for now. I do agree currently that it's due to changes in newer Tcl.pm.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@tmtvl @chrstphrchvz