[racket-dev] [DrDr] R28812 (timeout 1) (unclean 6) (stderr 7) (changes 17)

Ok, clarification its not the binding of values. Its the annotation
added by the #{ : } form which doesn't work if the unit tests are
compiled ahead of time. I'm guessing that is because in that case the
syntax obects go through zo-serialization and thus lose the property.

On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Eric Dobson <eric.n.dobson at gmail.com> wrote:
> +dev in case others have likely insights.
>
> Recap:
> TR's with contracts unit test is failing. I have diagonsed the issue
> to the bindings in the test case are not the same as expected, and
> syntax parse doesn't match them. I have made a reasonably minimal test
> case, and figure out that the line that is causing it is
> "(use-compiled-filepaths null)". I believe that this shouldn't cause
> semantic changes, so I'm wondering if any one can give any insight as
> to why this could cause problems.
>
> Reduced test case (Checkout the branch):
> https://github.com/shekari/racket/tree/namespace-issues
> Run: racket -l tests/typed-racket/with-tr-contracts
>
> Code that is not matching the binding:
> https://github.com/shekari/racket/blob/namespace-issues/pkgs/typed-racket-pkgs/typed-racket-lib/typed-racket/typecheck/tc-app/tc-app-values.rkt#L45
>
> Actual rackunit test case:
> https://github.com/shekari/racket/blob/namespace-issues/pkgs/typed-racket-pkgs/typed-racket-test/tests/typed-racket/unit-tests/typecheck-tests.rkt#L481
>
> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Eric Dobson <eric.n.dobson at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Confirmed that this is not about contracts, it is about the
>> namespacing that is being done.
>>
>> Some how the `values` that is in the test case doesn't have the right
>> binding when done throught with-tr-contracts. This causes us to use
>> the regular app typechecking instead of the one specialized for values
>> which is why the result changes. I'm actually suprised that no other
>> tests fail.
>>
>> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Eric Dobson <eric.n.dobson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I'm not able to replicate this on my local machine, nor does it make
>>> sense for one unit test to fail because of a bad value is returned
>>> because contracts are turned on. Any insight into what could be
>>> causing this?
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 9:07 AM,  <drdr at racket-lang.org> wrote:
>>>> DrDr has finished building push #28812 after 3.40h.
>>>>
>>>> http://drdr.racket-lang.org/28812/
>>>>
>>>> A file you are responsible for has a condition that may need inspecting.
>>>>   stderr:
>>>>     http://drdr.racket-lang.org/28812/pkgs/typed-racket-pkgs/typed-racket-test/tests/typed-racket/with-tr-contracts.rkt
>>>>
>>>>