D201: tests: clarify that duplicate flag processors is not an error

[martinvonz (Martin von Zweigbergk)]

martinvonz created this revision.
Herald added a subscriber: mercurial-devel.
Herald added a reviewer: hg-reviewers.

REVISION SUMMARY
  The flag processors test for duplicate processors for a single flag
  was misleading because the file from the previous test case caused it
  to fail (making the "echo 'this should fail' > file" part
  irrelevant). Let's remove the leftover from the previous test case to
  make it clear that duplicate flag processors results only in a
  warning.
  
  Note that duplicate flag processors would have resulted in a failure
  (not just a warning) until https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/rHGea1c2eb7abd341c84422f489af75bccb02622671 (extensions: catch uisetup and
  extsetup failures and don't let them break hg, 2017-06-06). I remember
  expressing my concern about ending up with half-loaded extensions. It
  would be pretty unfortunate to have double-encoded revlog content
  enter a repo, so maybe we should reconsider?

REPOSITORY
  rHG Mercurial

REVISION DETAIL
  https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D201

AFFECTED FILES
  tests/test-flagprocessor.t

CHANGE DETAILS

diff --git a/tests/test-flagprocessor.t b/tests/test-flagprocessor.t
--- a/tests/test-flagprocessor.t
+++ b/tests/test-flagprocessor.t
@@ -152,6 +152,8 @@
   $ hg commit -Aqm 'fail+base64+gzip+noop'
   abort: missing processor for flag '0x1'!
   [255]
+  $ hg forget fail-base64-gzip-noop
+  $ rm fail-base64-gzip-noop
 
 # TEST: ensure we cannot register several flag processors on the same flag
   $ cat >> .hg/hgrc << EOF
@@ -162,8 +164,6 @@
   $ echo 'this should fail' > file
   $ hg commit -Aqm 'add file'
   *** failed to set up extension duplicate: cannot register multiple processors on flag '0x8'.
-  abort: missing processor for flag '0x1'!
-  [255]
 
   $ cd ..
 



To: martinvonz, #hg-reviewers
Cc: mercurial-devel