[pacman-dev] [PATCH] Fix vercmp and add additional tests

[Dan McGee]

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:38 AM, Xavier <shiningxc at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dan McGee wrote:
>> This vercmp issue has been a sticking point but this should resolve many of
>> the issues that have come up. Only a few minor code changes were necessary
>> to get the behavior we desired, and this version appears to beat any other
>> vercmp rendition on a few more cases added in this commit.
>>
>> This commit passes all 58 vercmp tests currently out there. Other 'fixes'
>> still fail on a few tests, namely these ones:
>>
>> test: ver1: 1.5.a ver2: 1.5 ret: -1 expected: 1
>>   ==> FAILURE
>> test: ver1: 1.5 ver2: 1.5.a ret: 1 expected: -1
>>   ==> FAILURE
>> test: ver1: 1.5-1 ver2: 1.5.b ret: 1 expected: -1
>>   ==> FAILURE
>> test: ver1: 1.5.b ver2: 1.5-1 ret: -1 expected: 1
>>   ==> FAILURE
>> 4 of 58 tests failed
>>
>
> Well, I don't really care how you fix it. But my point was that everyone
> was used the old vercmp behavior, and no one reported any bugs or
> unexpected behavior that would justify to change this code. For example,
> I am not aware of anyone reporting the above cases.
> So I just went for the "If it's not broken, don't fix it" way.
>
> Now if you think the new code is better and also offer a better
> behavior, that's fine.

No hard feelings if it came across that way. :)

I was mostly just curious how different the two implementations were,
so I played around a lot last night. I have one commit where I mashed
the two up, and then I stumbled upon what was basically a 3 line
change here to restore the old behavior. Two of the changes were
mistakes in the pkgrel handling, and the other simply dealt with the
assumption that leftover characters always indicated a greater
version.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the behavior of the above new test
cases? Obviously these are not common in real life at all, but they at
least seemed valid to try and place in our ordering system as I
attempted above.

-Dan