[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: tests

From: Jim Meyering
Subject: Re: tests
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 22:34:40 -0700

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 10:25 PM, Jim Meyering <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Assaf Gordon <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>> On Jun 4, 2016, at 01:15, Jim Meyering <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> Thanks for still more tests.
>>> I don't have time for the full review today, but may have spotted a
>>> nit. Is this comment obsolete, because the bug it
>>> refers to is the one you fixed recently?
>> Thank you for spotting that.
>> Attached improved 3 tests (where '\c\\' is tested).

Regarding the 2nd patch, "tests: test \dNNN \oNNN \xNN escape
sequences", do any of those tests evoke different behavior from
other-vendor sed commands (assuming they support the feature)?

However, neither this question nor the one about \c in the other patch
should hold up your pushing of these new tests.
They are nicely stand-alone and do one job: improve test coverage.

Thank you for the fine, single-tenet patches.
You're welcome to push them.

reply via email to

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