Skip to content

run-tests: revert "EXTENSIONS" section bug introduced in #2673 #6910

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.

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

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

maaarghk
Copy link
Contributor

documented behaviour of loading extensions from shared modules was
broken some time ago, this patch reintroduces that feature whilst
retaining other changes which allow the skip cache to work

rationale is in #2673 (comment)

the output of skipcache __destroy is the same before and after this patch, so I am confident it doesn't break anything.

documented behaviour of loading extensions from shared modules was
broken some time ago, this patch reintroduces that feature whilst
retaining other changes which allow the skip cache to work
Co-authored-by: Markus Staab <[email protected]>
@nikic
Copy link
Member

nikic commented Apr 26, 2021

I'm not sure this is really right either. For php-src itself, you do want to get all extensions from modules/.

@maaarghk
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think that's fine, because loaded is calculated using the parameters which are passed from the Makefile, it won't add any extension= or zend_extension= lines for anything that the Makefile is processing.

@nikic
Copy link
Member

nikic commented May 6, 2021

And this is why I always call run-tests.php directly -- too much magic in make test...

I think the behavior of run-tests.php itself is correct here. It wouldn't make much sense if you called run-tests.php -d extension_dir=DIR and that would simply get ignored.

We should address this on the side of make test. I think a good way to do so would be to make it not set extension_dir at all (leave it at the default), and instead pass in -d extension= using absolute rather than relative paths.

@nikic
Copy link
Member

nikic commented May 14, 2021

I've put up #6983 for the variant described above. Can you tell me whether that would work for your use-case?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants