[darcs-users] darcs patch: added regression test for issue1632
ben.franksen at online.de
Fri Oct 2 08:45:32 UTC 2009
I'll amend and re-send (that's why I asked for review).
Trent W. Buck wrote:
> benjamin.franksen at bessy.de writes:
>> +## Test for issue1632 - <SYNOPSIS: 'darcs changes
>> dir/file-that-never-existed' +## should not list any patches.>
> The surrounding <SYNOPSIS: > part isn't needed.
Ok (this wasn't clear from the example).
> I would probably also
> clarify that dir *does* exist (as far as pristine is concerned), e.g.
> darcs changes D/f should not list any changes, where D is part of
> the repo and f is a non-existent file.
> ...since I'm assuming that "adddir dir/" must be recorded in order to
> trigger this bug.
Yes and yes.
>> +# This one lists no patches:
>> +darcs changes non-existent-file | not grep 'added dir'
>> +# But this one lists the dir creation patch:
>> +darcs changes dir/non-existent-file | not grep 'added dir'
> I would prefer these comments to describe what *should* happen, rather
> than the current behaviour, i.e.
> # Darcs should not list any changes here.
> # Darcs should list the dir creation patch here.
These would not be correct but I get your meaning. You want to just rename
the script after the fix and not have to meddle with the comments, right?
> I would also redirect output (>log) so as to test Darcs' exit status,
> not darcs changes dir/non-existent-file >log
> not fgrep 'added dir' log
What is the advantage of this?
BTW, is there any documentation about darcs return codes? (Asking because
you wrote 'not darcs changes ...'.)
More information about the darcs-users