[erlang-questions] common test hiding errors?

[Joel Reymont]

On Aug 13, 2011, at 5:48 PM, Jon Watte wrote:

> The question is: What behavior are you getting from the function under test? If it doesn't behave the way it's specified to, that should generate a test failure.

I do get a test failure, although I'm not testing a function. 

I'm testing a system composed of various processes. 

> Once you've detected that there is a test failure, you should be able to re-run the test manually (say, from command line) to debug it.

Will I get the error from the crashing process in the error log or in the terminal?

It's a pointless exercise if I do not.

> Is your request really something like: "When a CommonTest fails, how can I do post-mortem debugging on the failing test case"?

Yes but I would be content with simply seeing the errors from crashing processes in the Common Test raw log file.

I get the output from my invocation of error_log:error_report, etc. but I do not see errors from crashing processes.

badarg? undef? Nowhere to be found and must be guessed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
- for hire: mac osx device driver ninja, kernel extensions and usb drivers
---------------------+------------+---------------------------------------
http://wagerlabs.com | @wagerlabs | http://www.linkedin.com/in/joelreymont
---------------------+------------+---------------------------------------