Fernando Ramos <greenfoo@xxxxxx> writes:
> On 22/07/13 02:08PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>
>> I think s/1/true/ or something is in order, perhaps?
>>
>
> Yes. I was just looking into that.
>
> For one, as you said, "1" should be "true". That also changes the expected
> output.
OK, because "1" fails to execute, the expected output Dscho had
(which is for the case without base) would become invalid when we
use "true".
Perhaps we should use "false" instead? Or do we need to test both?
> Then, in addition, the expected output needs to be re-adjusted once again if we
> plan to apply this patch on top of the other one from two days ago (the one that
> adds the "leftabove" keyword to split subcommands).
> After these changes, this is how the original patch from Johannes needs to be
> updated:
>
>
> diff --git a/mergetools/vimdiff b/mergetools/vimdiff
> index 56516ae271..3046dcd0dc 100644
> --- a/mergetools/vimdiff
> +++ b/mergetools/vimdiff
> @@ -623,7 +623,7 @@ run_unit_tests () {
> done
> }
>
> - base_present=1
> + base_present=true
> LOCAL='lo cal'
> BASE='ba se'
> REMOTE="' '"
> @@ -635,10 +635,11 @@ run_unit_tests () {
> cat >expect <<-\EOF
> -f
> -c
> - echo | split | vertical split | 1b | wincmd l | vertical split | quit | wincmd l | 2b | wincmd j | 3b | tabdo windo diffthis
> + echo | -tabnew | leftabove split | leftabove vertical split | 1b | wincmd l | leftabove vertical split | 2b | wincmd l | 3b | wincmd j | 4b | tabnext | -tabnew | leftabove vertical split | 2b | wincmd l | 1b | tabnext | -tabnew | leftabove vertical split | 2b | wincmd l | 3b | tabnext | leftabove vertical split | leftabove split | 1b | wincmd j | leftabove split | 2b | wincmd j | 3b | wincmd l | 4b | tabdo windo diffthis
> -c
> tabfirst
> lo cal
> + ba se
> ' '
> mer ged
> EOF
