I'll amend and re-send (that's why I asked for review). Trent W. Buck wrote: > [email protected] writes: >> +## Test for issue1632 - <SYNOPSIS: 'darcs changes >> dir/file-that-never-existed' +## should not list any patches.> > > The surrounding <SYNOPSIS: > part isn't needed.
Ok (this wasn't clear from the example). > I would probably also > clarify that dir *does* exist (as far as pristine is concerned), e.g. > > darcs changes D/f should not list any changes, where D is part of > the repo and f is a non-existent file. > > ...since I'm assuming that "adddir dir/" must be recorded in order to > trigger this bug. Yes and yes. >> [...] >> +# This one lists no patches: >> +darcs changes non-existent-file | not grep 'added dir' >> +# But this one lists the dir creation patch: >> +darcs changes dir/non-existent-file | not grep 'added dir' > > I would prefer these comments to describe what *should* happen, rather > than the current behaviour, i.e. > > # Darcs should not list any changes here. > # Darcs should list the dir creation patch here. These would not be correct but I get your meaning. You want to just rename the script after the fix and not have to meddle with the comments, right? > I would also redirect output (>log) so as to test Darcs' exit status, > e.g. > > not darcs changes dir/non-existent-file >log > not fgrep 'added dir' log What is the advantage of this? BTW, is there any documentation about darcs return codes? (Asking because you wrote 'not darcs changes ...'.) Cheers Ben _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
