Paul Burba wrote on Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 09:38:31 -0400:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> > pburba_at_apache.org wrote on Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 15:46:10 -0000:
> >> +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/cmdline/log_tests.py Tue Mar 8 15:46:09 2011
> >> @@ -1148,9 +1148,9 @@ def check_merge_results(log_chain, expec
> >>
> >> # Check to see if the number and values of the revisions is correct
> >> for log in log_chain:
> >> - if (log['revision'] not in expected_merges
> >> - and (expected_reverse_merges is not None
> >> - and log['revision'] not in expected_reverse_merges)):
> >> + if not ((expected_merges and log['revision'] in expected_merges)
> >> + or (expected_reverse_merges
> >> + and log['revision'] in expected_reverse_merges)):
> >
> > If EXPECTED_MERGES and EXPECTED_REVERSE_MERGES are both None,
> > then the if() would trigger --- and I don't think that's the
> > intention.
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
> It is the intention. If EXPECTED_MERGES and EXPECTED_REVERSE_MERGES
> are both None, then the caller believes that no merged revisions
> (normal or reverse) are present. However, there *is* something in the
> LOG_CHAIN, so there is an error. Admittedly, none of the present
> callers pass EXPECTED_MERGES=None and EXPECTED_REVERSE_MERGES=None,
> but we might have reason to do so in the future.
>
> Paul
I see; I assumed that passing None means "I don't care about this piece
of information; do not attempt to validate it", and that callers who
believe there are no merged revisions would pass an empty dict/list.
Thanks for the clarification,
Daniel
Received on 2011-03-15 14:57:21 CET