Example runs

Real reports, kept so a change can be diffed against something that actually happened rather than against a description of it.

full-sweep.txt

The complete run: 17 sections, 88 checks, 523 records, a terminator, and a final tally of 59 pass / 3 partial / 20 fail / 6 skip. obscene-tool verify calls it well-formed.

Two findings in it are worth looking at directly, because they are what the suite is for:

Read the expectations: line before drawing conclusions from any red. Nothing in this report has been confirmed against real hardware, so a failure marked [assumed] may be this suite's belief rather than the platform's bug.

Two checks are excluded, which is what made it complete. Each of them ends the emulator process rather than returning, and a call that does that takes every check behind it with it - the first run reached 110 records. They are reported as skips with the reason, so they stay visible and a diff still sees them stop being run:

make module EXCLUDE="040-file/open-rejects-null 080-video/flip-rate-rejects-bad-handle"

Read 900-surface/control before believing any census count in it. It fails, correctly: this emulator resolves every unrecognised import to a stub, so the presence test cannot tell a real function from a placeholder.

emulator-run.txt

The first run against an emulator, kept because it is where the crash was found rather than excluded. 110 records, stopping a third of the way in.

It is not a clean report, and that is why it is worth keeping:

Compare a later run against it with:

obscene-tool diff docs/examples/emulator-run.txt build/current.txt

which reports what got worse, not what is failing - under an early emulator almost everything fails, and a tool that called that a regression would be ignored within a day.