darcs

Patch 2082 resolve issue2570: coalesceHunk should take arguments ...

Title resolve issue2570: coalesceHunk should take arguments ...
Superseder Nosy List bf
Related Issues
Status accepted Assigned To
Milestone

Created on 2020-08-01.11:48:42 by bf, last changed 2020-10-17.08:58:35 by bf.

Files
File name Status Uploaded Type Edit Remove
patch-preview.txt bf, 2020-08-01.11:48:42 text/x-darcs-patch
resolve-issue2570_-coalescehunk-should-take-arguments-in-the-natural-order.dpatch bf, 2020-08-01.11:48:42 application/x-darcs-patch
unnamed bf, 2020-08-01.11:48:42 text/plain
See mailing list archives for discussion on individual patches.
Messages
msg22357 (view) Author: bf Date: 2020-08-01.11:48:42
I thought I had fixed this, but apparently did not.

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

patch a6ebb72f5926f8ef2af860fcb46816e0f9ce5945
Author: Ben Franksen <ben.franksen@online.de>
Date:   Sat Aug  1 13:54:52 CEST 2020
  * resolve issue2570: coalesceHunk should take arguments in the natural order
Attachments
msg22419 (view) Author: ganesh Date: 2020-08-09.15:11:36
FYI the tests pass on Windows with this patch
msg22459 (view) Author: ganesh Date: 2020-10-16.19:02:10
Fine.
msg22460 (view) Author: ganesh Date: 2020-10-16.19:02:27
(not sure if it merits a test?)
msg22470 (view) Author: bf Date: 2020-10-16.22:23:30
> (not sure if it merits a test?)

What kind of test were you thinking of?
msg22471 (view) Author: ganesh Date: 2020-10-16.22:54:51
I thought you mentioned in issue2570 that some cases you expected to coalesce
didn't, so that might turn into a test using amend-record.

Not worth much effort, if any, though.
msg22475 (view) Author: bf Date: 2020-10-17.08:58:33
> I thought you mentioned in issue2570 that some cases you expected to coalesce
> didn't, so that might turn into a test using amend-record.

Ah, no. I was confused by the code itself and did not understand how it
could possibly work, so I constructed a few simple examples and tested
them in ghci with the raw function. All of the "problems" I noticed were
due to me not realising that the argument order was "wrong" i.e. the
arguments named xxx1 were actually from the second patch and vice versa.
This counter-intuitive naming and placement of the arguments is what the
patch fixes. There is no change in behavior at all.
History
Date User Action Args
2020-08-01 11:48:42bfcreate
2020-08-09 15:11:36ganeshsetmessages: + msg22419
2020-08-14 12:42:11bfsetstatus: needs-screening -> needs-review
2020-10-16 19:02:10ganeshsetstatus: needs-review -> accepted-pending-tests
messages: + msg22459
2020-10-16 19:02:27ganeshsetmessages: + msg22460
2020-10-16 20:32:36ganeshsetstatus: accepted-pending-tests -> accepted
2020-10-16 22:23:30bfsetmessages: + msg22470
2020-10-16 22:54:52ganeshsetmessages: + msg22471
2020-10-17 08:58:35bfsetmessages: + msg22475