Tue, 07 Jan 2014 22:29:51 +0100 check-code: drop now unused check-code-ignore
Simon Heimberg <simohe@besonet.ch> [Tue, 07 Jan 2014 22:29:51 +0100] rev 20242
check-code: drop now unused check-code-ignore Using check-code-ignore to skip the failures on a line has several disadvantages: * It skips all check-code failures on a line, not only the one it was created for. * It does not give any hint for which rule it was added, making it difficult to see when it is not needed anymore. So drop this pragma in favor of better alternatives promoted before.
Tue, 07 Jan 2014 22:29:44 +0100 check-code: explain what to do when a check-code rule mismatches
Simon Heimberg <simohe@besonet.ch> [Tue, 07 Jan 2014 22:29:44 +0100] rev 20241
check-code: explain what to do when a check-code rule mismatches In the past several approaches were used when a check-code rule triggered without a good reason. Not all of them looked nice, some were even wrong. Suggest some good practices which should be used instead.
Tue, 07 Jan 2014 22:29:39 +0100 cleanup: Remove the only ever used skip-check-code pragma
Simon Heimberg <simohe@besonet.ch> [Tue, 07 Jan 2014 22:29:39 +0100] rev 20240
cleanup: Remove the only ever used skip-check-code pragma Use the work-around suggested by the rule instead
Tue, 07 Jan 2014 22:29:15 +0100 check-code: always report when a file is skipped by "no-check-code"
Simon Heimberg <simohe@besonet.ch> [Tue, 07 Jan 2014 22:29:15 +0100] rev 20239
check-code: always report when a file is skipped by "no-check-code" Skipping an entire file generally from checking is an important event, so report it always. Do not tell the check name because skipping does not depend on it. Directly skip the entire file instead of checking more patterns and skip again. The pragma no-check-code was introduced by accident in the past. (Fixed in e033a7d444ac and ee07f9d142c9.) This now is prevented because the files to skip have to be listed in the test output of test-check-code-hg.t.
Tue, 07 Jan 2014 22:28:45 +0100 check-code: do not skip entire file, skip only one match instead
Simon Heimberg <simohe@besonet.ch> [Tue, 07 Jan 2014 22:28:45 +0100] rev 20238
check-code: do not skip entire file, skip only one match instead Skipping of the entire file has been introduced in bc3b48b0f5c8.
Sat, 16 Nov 2013 15:46:29 -0500 bisect: --command without --noupdate should flag the parent rev it tested
Mads Kiilerich <madski@unity3d.com> [Sat, 16 Nov 2013 15:46:29 -0500] rev 20237
bisect: --command without --noupdate should flag the parent rev it tested 14913fcb30c6 not only introduced the 'bisect(current)' revset predicate, it also changed how the 'current' revision is used in combination with --command. The new behaviour might be ok for --noupdate where the working directory and its revision shouldn't be used, but it also did that when --command is used to run a command on the currently checked out revision then it could register the test result on the wrong revision. An example: Before, bisect with --command could use the wrong revision when recording the test result: $ hg up -qr 0 $ hg bisect --command "python \"$TESTTMP/script.py\" and some parameters" changeset 31:58c80a7c8a40: bad abort: inconsistent state, 31:58c80a7c8a40 is good and bad Now it works as before and as expected and uses the working directory revision for the --command result: $ hg up -qr 0 $ hg bisect --command "python \"$TESTTMP/script.py\" and some parameters" changeset 0:b99c7b9c8e11: bad ...
Sat, 16 Nov 2013 15:46:29 -0500 context: drop caching 'copies' method
Mads Kiilerich <madski@unity3d.com> [Sat, 16 Nov 2013 15:46:29 -0500] rev 20236
context: drop caching 'copies' method The 'copies' method has no test coverage and calls copies.pathcopies with an incorrect number of parameters and is thus (fortunately) not used. Kill it.
(0) -10000 -3000 -1000 -300 -100 -30 -10 -7 +7 +10 +30 +100 +300 +1000 +3000 +10000 +30000 tip