On Jun 26, 2017, at 1:56 PM, Dominique d'Humières <domi...@lps.ens.fr> wrote: > >> Le 26 juin 2017 à 20:35, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> a écrit : >> On Jun 26, 2017, at 2:26 AM, Dominique d'Humières <domi...@lps.ens.fr> wrote: >>> >>> Is it OK to commit the following patch (darwin only)? >> >> Ok. As for [0-9a-f]*ing the numbers, at least 1 of test cases should retain >> the actual number check. I'm fine with the resting being an RE, if someone >> wants to do that. > > Which test case should retain the actual number check? and could elaborate > why? These tests are fragile and the RE have already been changed in the past.
This was commentary on the other comment about using REs instead. You can ignore it, if you want. As for which test case, I'd have to closely examine them to determine that. I've not done that. Technically, you want to check all the ones that have items in them that aren't reflected in other test cases that check the value.
