darcs

Patch 2075 test for whether rebase suspend/unsuspend introduces c...

Title test for whether rebase suspend/unsuspend introduces c...
Superseder Nosy List bf
Related Issues
Status in-discussion Assigned To
Milestone

Created on 2020-07-30.12:46:34 by bf, last changed 2020-07-30.18:50:19 by ganesh.

Files
File name Status Uploaded Type Edit Remove
patch-preview.txt bf, 2020-07-30.12:46:34 text/x-darcs-patch
test-for-whether-rebase-suspend_unsuspend-introduces-conflicts.dpatch bf, 2020-07-30.12:46:34 application/x-darcs-patch
unnamed bf, 2020-07-30.12:46:34 text/plain
See mailing list archives for discussion on individual patches.
Messages
msg22297 (view) Author: bf Date: 2020-07-30.12:46:34
I just found this patch of yours that was never screened while cleaning up
the rebase state in one of my clones. I have amended the patch to avoid
warnings and to avoid running the test when the patch type does not allow
coalescing. I think this should go into 2.16 as it clarifies what works with
the new rebase implementation. It is of course also valuable to avoid
regressions.

1 patch for repository http://darcs.net/screened:

patch ba4ca2fb7b6969a24356d36bc4551b43cf7b7e95
Author: Ganesh Sittampalam <ganesh@earth.li>
Date:   Thu May 14 21:29:32 CEST 2020
  * test for whether rebase suspend/unsuspend introduces conflicts
Attachments
msg22299 (view) Author: bf Date: 2020-07-30.12:59:21
Screening
msg22300 (view) Author: bf Date: 2020-07-30.13:03:02
I check it cleanly builds with all supported compiler versions.
Test succeeds.
msg22307 (view) Author: ganesh Date: 2020-07-30.17:16:23
Are you sure this passes? I just tried it with reviewed and it failed for v1 
and v2 with the standard count (100). From what I recall of my previous
experiments, it would also fail with v3 with a larger test count.
msg22312 (view) Author: bf Date: 2020-07-30.18:26:52
> Are you sure this passes? I just tried it with reviewed and it failed for v1 
> and v2 with the standard count (100). From what I recall of my previous
> experiments, it would also fail with v3 with a larger test count.

I did run the test and it succeeded for me. But with larger test counts
it fails for me, too.

I have obliterated the patch from branch-2.16, reviewed, and screened
and marked the patch as in-discussion.

Sorry about this.
msg22314 (view) Author: ganesh Date: 2020-07-30.18:50:19
I don't think we have a concept of failing unit tests, but if we did it 
would make sense to include this as one.

I think it _might_ also pass for starting sequences of length 2. Looking
again at this test was one of the things I was vaguely planning on doing as
part of my promise to try to characterise what works and doesn't with the
new rebase implementation.
History
Date User Action Args
2020-07-30 12:46:34bfcreate
2020-07-30 12:59:21bfsetmessages: + msg22299
2020-07-30 12:59:28bfsetstatus: needs-screening -> needs-review
2020-07-30 13:03:02bfsetstatus: needs-review -> accepted
messages: + msg22300
2020-07-30 17:16:23ganeshsetmessages: + msg22307
2020-07-30 18:24:43bfsetstatus: accepted -> in-discussion
2020-07-30 18:26:53bfsetmessages: + msg22312
2020-07-30 18:50:19ganeshsetmessages: + msg22314