On 26/04/21 14.06, Christian Couder wrote:
Thanks Bagas for your test! I will take a look at it soon. My opinion is that it would be best if both patches (Ramsay's and Bagas') were in the same patch series or even perhaps in the same commit. If you prefer separate patches, maybe the first one could be Ramsay's, and the second one Bagas' where indeed the instructions to replace test_expect_failure with test_expect_success have been followed.
OK. Review ping
It might not be the best API for this (or the set_terms() and get_terms() function could perhaps have better names), but anyway the current situation is that set_terms(&terms, "bad", "good") is setting the current terms to "bad"/"good" which is the default, and then get_terms(&terms) is reading the terms stored in the BISECT_TERMS file and using that to set the current terms. Also if the BISECT_TERMS file doesn't exist, then get_terms(&terms) is doing nothing. So it seems to me that Ramsay's patch is doing the right thing. If get_terms(&terms) was used before set_terms(&terms, "bad", "good"), then the current terms would always be "bad"/"good" even if the BISECT_TERMS file contains valid terms different from "bad"/"good".
OK, thanks for the explanation. -- An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
