[MERGE] Improve tests for the behaviour of Tree.iter_changes for missing paths that are only present in one tree, and fix found bugs. (Robert Collins)
v.ladeuil+lp at free.fr
Wed Aug 13 19:08:21 BST 2008
>>>>> "aaron" == Aaron Bentley <aaron at aaronbentley.com> writes:
aaron> Robert Collins wrote:
>> (Or to put it another way, I don't like TestNotApplicable all that
>> much, because 'raise' and 'not a problem' just don't fit in my head).
aaron> So then, consider it a problem that a test was run
aaron> which it did not make sense to run.
Thanks for that Aaron.
I wrote a mail earlier today and threw it away because I was
unhappy with the result.
I agree 90% here.
The missing 10% are because I think that there should be a way to
*not* run these tests *at all*. Since they are parametrized tests
they should just not be generated.
And I'm sure there is a high value in coding what Robert
expressed with both "not tree1.path2id('file')" and
"InterDirstateTree falls back to InterTree if the basis is not a
DirstateRevisionTree, and revision trees cannot have missing
Shameless pseudo-review: Missing paren for the "e.g." here
Since I'm in review mode now, BB:tweak, I'm ok with the test as
is *iff* a FIXME saying 'there should a better way to avoid
running non-sensical tests than using a bare return while
TestNotApplicable "just don't fit in my head" -- <nick><date>'
 I know the feeling, I'm sure I can find tests where I used
TestNotApplicable even if it didn't fit in my head either.
 I'm not asking to do the needed refactoring in our
parametrization framework, just linking subjects so that this
case is not forgotten.
More information about the bazaar