Call to undefined function _drupal_get_last_caller()
Dave Reid - September 14, 2009 - 20:15
| Project: | SimpleTest |
| Version: | 6.x-2.x-dev |
| Component: | Code |
| Category: | bug report |
| Priority: | normal |
| Assigned: | Unassigned |
| Status: | by design |
Jump to:
Description
Updated to the latest DRUPAL-6--2 CVS branch code to check if things were doing better and I get this on all test runs:
An error occurred. /batch?id=808&op=do
Fatal error: Call to undefined function _drupal_get_last_caller() in /home/dave/Projects/www/drupal6dev/sites/all/modules/simpletest/drupal_web_test_case.php on line 217
#1
I didn't apply the patch. My bad.
#2
what patch?
#3
>Fatal error: Call to undefined function _drupal_get_last_caller() in /sites/all/modules/contrib/simpletest/drupal_web_test_case.php on line 465
This is the latest dev from November.
#4
Check the latest INSTALL.txt - you need to apply a core patch that defines the function.
#5
SimpleTest is a great module for enforcing best practice. We're trying to get everyone using it here as a matter of course, certainly for developing modules which otherwise have no user feedback (API modules etc.)
Without wanting to tread on any toes, and given "Do not hack core" is a central tenet of community policy, then shouldn't this core hack be worked around somehow? Otherwise it's encouraging bad practice. Is there an issue already open for that?
Also, I can't deploy SimpleTest in exactly-like-production environments if I have to hack core to use it, which means I can't guarantee my unit tests means things will work exactly the same way in production. I'll dig into the patches to check that if I have to, but again it seems a shame that people will trust their weight less to SimpleTest.
#6
I was questioning this myself, and I imagine a "proper" solution (in the strictest sense of the word) would involve either integrating this patch into Drupal core, or otherwise working around the need for it to begin with. I do understand the justification from a more pragmatic standpoint, but surely there is a cleaner way to do this. I can't seem to find a related issue in the queue - perhaps a new ticket should be opened to discuss this further?