[darcs-users] [patch258] Bug fix: treat filenames in darcs-2 patc... (and 1 more)

Eric Kow kowey at darcs.net
Tue Jun 15 12:41:57 UTC 2010

If I don't solve the testing problem, I'd suggest applying this patch bundle
in time for darcs 2.5 alpha

On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 19:09:31 +0000, Reinier Lamers wrote:
> Here's a review of patch 258. Before pushing it, I'd like to know if it's 
> intentional that all tests that the bundle adds pass, even when I apply only 
> the new tests.

Ah sorry about that! I've had a look, and to be honest, I'm slightly
confused because I distinctly remember failing bits when you apply
some subset of the bugfix patch but not the whole thing.  But I can't
reproduce it.

> Use the new format when reading conflictors using the ReadPatch instance for 
> RealPatch (which is the darcs-2 patch type afaik).

That's my understanding too, as documented in

We've inherited the Darcs code from one maintainer.  We must learn it.
It will take some time.

> And also use the new format when reading inverse conflictors using the 
> ReadPatch instance for RealPatch.

I wonder if we'll ever see inverse conflictors in real life.

> >+# nons
> >+cd S3
> >+echo hello >> kitöltés.lisp
> >+darcs record -a -m "My conflicting edit"
> >+echo hello >> kitöltés.lisp
> >+touch non-kitöltés.lisp
> >+darcs add non-kitöltés.lisp
> >+darcs record -a -m "My continuation of the conflict"
> >+darcs pull -a ../R
> >+darcs pull -a ../R
> >+cd ..
> Add 3 more scenarios. I don't understand what the third one wants to check. It 
> has a conflicting edit and then records something unrelated to a file named 
> non-kitöltés.lisp. Is that when Non's arise?

I confess that this was sort of random because I didn't really
understand the patch structure well enough.  It was just me trying
to make something complicated happen.

I think what I was vaguely after was the context part of a Non patch.

    conflictor [
    hunk ./kit<U+00C3><U+00B6>lt<U+00C3><U+00A9>s.lisp 2
    <-- the stuff that would go here
    hunk ./kit<U+00C3><U+00B6>lt<U+00C3><U+00A9>s.lisp 2

So I'm going to see now if I can construct such a scenario.

> What's more, all 3 tests succeed for me even when the other 2 patches have not 
> been applied! Is that intentional?

No, sorry! :-/

I suspect at this point I was no longer relying on the test per se but
just looking at the darcs changes output on {S,S2,S3} before and after this
patch.  They should output something consistent for the filename (keeping in
mind that this is just a *read* test).  To make the test fail, I'm going to
throw in a test that runs uniq on the filenames listed in the darcs changes
output making sure we only get one filename.

Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow>
PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-users/attachments/20100615/75f2a0dd/attachment.pgp>

More information about the darcs-users mailing list