tests: clarify that duplicate flag processors is not an error stable
authorMartin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com>
Mon, 31 Jul 2017 16:40:31 -0700
branchstable
changeset 33614 41081364addb
parent 33613 3b77d4787c18
child 33615 c6146dd10072
tests: clarify that duplicate flag processors is not an error The flag processors test for duplicate processors for a single flag was misleading because the file from the previous test case caused it to fail (making the "echo 'this should fail' > file" part irrelevant). Let's remove the leftover from the previous test case to make it clear that duplicate flag processors results only in a warning. Note that duplicate flag processors would have resulted in a failure (not just a warning) until ea1c2eb7abd3 (extensions: catch uisetup and extsetup failures and don't let them break hg, 2017-06-06). I remember expressing my concern about ending up with half-loaded extensions. It would be pretty unfortunate to have double-encoded revlog content enter a repo, so maybe we should reconsider? Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D201
tests/test-flagprocessor.t
--- a/tests/test-flagprocessor.t	Tue Aug 01 01:27:32 2017 +0900
+++ b/tests/test-flagprocessor.t	Mon Jul 31 16:40:31 2017 -0700
@@ -152,6 +152,8 @@
   $ hg commit -Aqm 'fail+base64+gzip+noop'
   abort: missing processor for flag '0x1'!
   [255]
+  $ hg forget fail-base64-gzip-noop
+  $ rm fail-base64-gzip-noop
 
 # TEST: ensure we cannot register several flag processors on the same flag
   $ cat >> .hg/hgrc << EOF
@@ -162,8 +164,6 @@
   $ echo 'this should fail' > file
   $ hg commit -Aqm 'add file'
   *** failed to set up extension duplicate: cannot register multiple processors on flag '0x8'.
-  abort: missing processor for flag '0x1'!
-  [255]
 
   $ cd ..