[PATCH RFC] run-tests: support per-line conditional output in tests

Matt Harbison mharbison72 at gmail.com
Thu Apr 6 23:25:22 EDT 2017


On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 20:15:41 -0400, Jun Wu <quark at fb.com> wrote:

> Excerpts from Matt Harbison's message of 2017-04-06 20:06:02 -0400:
>> On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 18:27:31 -0400, Jun Wu <quark at fb.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Excerpts from Matt Harbison's message of 2017-04-04 00:01:55 -0400:
>> >> The only thing that I haven't figured out yet is why the '(glob)'
>> >> interferes
>> >> in the first hardlink.t hunk.  If it is kept, that line falls to the
>> >> bottom of
>> >> the (xxx ?) sequence on Windows.  As it is, this test runs cleanly on
>> >> Linux.
>> >
>> > From 6a672c3b7860, it seems we may be able to just say 2 there:
>> >
>> >   -  ? r4/.hg/cache/checklink-target (glob)
>> >   +  2 r4/.hg/cache/checklink-target
>>
>> Interesting.  That's the commit that changed it from a number to the  
>> glob,
>> so I assumed that it was important.  I did manage to fix the issue, and
>> don't have OS X in front of me, so I'll leave that alone for now.
>
> The minus and plus signs are the change I think we can make, not the  
> patch
> introduced.

Yep.  I misread original commit.

> 6a672c3b7860 is inconsistent about "checklink-target" it added to the  
> test.
> One of them uses "?", the other uses "2". So I think we can change it to  
> "2"
> without issues.

If that's true, then I guess the 'checklink (?)' line is unnecessary too,  
because it isn't in the later test either.  I don't have access to  
Solaris, but I'll try to check on OS X tomorrow if I remember.

>>
>> > I like this feature.


More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list