[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: vc-state and unregistered

From: Dmitry Gutov
Subject: Re: vc-state and unregistered
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 23:43:31 +0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0

On 04/24/2016 10:41 PM, Michael Albinus wrote:

And if buffer-file-name is outside of any version control, does your
version of vc-state return nil?

No. I didn't test this. As said, the tests must be improved, that's what
they are good for. And bugs must be fixed.

We could add a separate test for that, but the simplest fix would require updating the existing tests as well, and then that test wouldn't be necessary. See the commit I pushed.

Anyway, feel free to add it. We didn't finish the discussion about semantics, so it didn't seem proper to me to add tests for them.

But for the other cases, files under version control, my last commits
have shown improvements I believe. That's why I find your reaction to
revert everything ... annoying.

Not everything, just the parts that conflicted with the patch I've sent previously. Which I had to recreate.

So in the interest of speed, I've also removed all

  (should (eq (vc-state tmp-name) (vc-state tmp-name backend)))

checks. They aren't essential, and finding which of them are failing exactly is too time-consuming.

Let's only add each of them back after they pass. I'd also like to have the different steps of each scenario as separate tests, so that ERT can tell us which failed.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]