[DRMAA-WG] wifexited and wifsignalled confusion continues

[Piotr Domagalski]

On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 9:09 AM, Peter Tröger <peter at troeger.eu> wrote:
> I am not the C binding expert, even though I am maintaining the test
> suite. Most test cases were originally written for SGE, and therefore
> could be way too specific. We already relaxed a lot of tests, in order
> to fit better to the spec itself. This sounds like just another case. If
> you guys agree on 128, we can put that in.

I don't think this has much to do with C binding. I see it as
implementability of specification requirements...

Therefore, in order to have more implementations pass the test suite,
I would vote for limiting ST_EXIT_STATUS test to only codes <= 128.
Then, it would be specific impl detail whether it supports obtaining 8
or 7 bit exit statuses. If DRMS uses shell to start the executable,
it's not possible to have meaningful 8 bit exit code.

It could also be worth noting in the specification document.

>> The thing is that current test suite (again, Peter?) tests whether a
>> signalled DRMAA's job was both wifsignaled and wifexited. That kind of
>> puzzled me.
>
> This is a bug, and should have been fixed since test suite 1.6.0 (check
> the CHANGELOG). We had this discussion before. Please, send me a patch.

Lines 2203-2204 (part of ST_SUBMIT_KILL_SIG test) in trunk's test_drmaa.c:

  // DRMAA must tell us that the job was signalled and exited (see GFD 133)
  if (!check_term_details(stat, 0, 1, 1)) return 1;

-- 
Piotr Domagalski