On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 3:52 AM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 11/10/10 03:57, Xavier Chantry wrote:
Signed-off-by: Xavier Chantry<chantry.xavier@gmail.com> --- test/pacman/tests/sync-sdd1.py | 15 +++++++++++++++ test/pacman/tests/sync-sdd2.py | 15 +++++++++++++++ test/pacman/tests/sync-sdd3.py | 15 +++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) create mode 100644 test/pacman/tests/sync-sdd1.py create mode 100644 test/pacman/tests/sync-sdd2.py create mode 100644 test/pacman/tests/sync-sdd3.py
Are you proposing a new test naming scheme here too? Because I like it...
Anyway, ack to the tests. Hopefully cases 2 and 3 were already covered, but it does not hurt to explicitly have these as a group.
Well you spotted exactly the two problems I had. First I tried to look for a pactest with -S that failed because a versioned dependency I found provision022.py that almost suited my need. But then with this stupid numbering with almost complete disorder, I never know how to insert new pactests. On one hand, we had 'provision001' style naming describing a functionality, on the other hand 'sync001' which only gives the operation. I just mixed the two to create a new group. Also I thought it was a good illustration for -Sdd to show how -S, -Sd and -Sdd behave in the same situation.