Re: [PATCH v14 4/6] parse-options.c: make OPTION_COUNTUP respect "unspecified" values

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:03 PM, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 4:39 AM, Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> +test_expect_success 'OPT_COUNTUP() resets to 0 with --no- flag' '
>>>> +       test-parse-options --no-verbose >output 2>output.err &&
>>>> +       test_must_be_empty output.err &&
>>>> +       test_cmp expect output
>>>> +'
>>>
>>> In my v12 review, I noticed that neither --no-verbose nor --no-quiet
>>> was being tested by t0040 (which is conceptually independent of the
>>> OPT__COUNTUP change) and suggested[3] that you add a new patch to
>>> address that shortcoming. This idea was followed up by [1] saying that
>>> this test (here) could then be dropped since the case it checks would
>>> already be covered by the new patch. My impression was that you
>>> agreed[4] that that made sense, however, this test is still here. Did
>>> I misunderstand your response[4]?
>>>
>>> [1]: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/290662
>>> [2]: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/289991
>>> [3]: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/290655
>>> [4]: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/290787
>>
>> I actually did include the tests in the patch 3/6[1]. I mentioned in
>> my response[2] that I will include the tests between 2/5 and 3/5.
>> Since, after that no email was exchanged, I thought you agreed.
>
> I'm not sure that I understand what you are saying since the
> --no-verbose test does not seem to be included in the patch you cite
> (it is instead in the present patch under discussion).
>
> Perhaps there is some miscommunication and misunderstanding.

Sorry for being a bit unclear.
I will explain this. The patch 3/6 contains the test which tests the
quiet option thus in turn testing whether the variable quiet becomes 0
with --no flag. This patch ie. 4/6 contains the test which tests the
verbose options thus in turn testing whether the variable verbose
becomes 0 with no flag. Both of them test different behavior as quiet
is initially 0 while verbose is initially -1.

So finally what I wanted to achieve is that I should test --no-quiet
in 3/6 as till then this new behavior is not yet introduced. Thus, it
will confirm the wanted behavior which exists before 4/6.

This patch introduces a test to verify whether --no-verbose makes the
variable 0. This patch introduces a new "unspecified" behavior. Thus
we can test this new behavior with this.

I hope now it is a bit clear on what I want to do.

>> [1]: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/291310
>> [2]:http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/290787
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]