Re: [PATCH 1/2] test: add check for <expected> filename argument for test_expect_equa...

diff --git a/a2/76f88f0714bffbcf4b8cf65dfb41aa09a0f292 b/a2/76f88f0714bffbcf4b8cf65dfb41aa09a0f292
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..d14b0bc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/a2/76f88f0714bffbcf4b8cf65dfb41aa09a0f292
@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
+Return-Path: <dmitry.kurochkin@gmail.com>\r
+X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])\r
+       by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1000431FAE\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Fri,  3 Feb 2012 06:05:25 -0800 (PST)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org\r
+X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
+X-Spam-Score: -0.799\r
+X-Spam-Level: \r
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5\r
+       tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1,\r
+       FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=disabled\r
+Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])\r
+       by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)\r
+       with ESMTP id dBW5B87m7kxO for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+       Fri,  3 Feb 2012 06:05:23 -0800 (PST)\r
+Received: from mail-bk0-f53.google.com (mail-bk0-f53.google.com\r
+       [209.85.214.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))\r
+       (No client certificate requested)\r
+       by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A589431FAF\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Fri,  3 Feb 2012 06:05:23 -0800 (PST)\r
+Received: by bke11 with SMTP id 11so3500552bke.26\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 06:05:20 -0800 (PST)\r
+DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;\r
+       h=from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:user-agent:date:message-id\r
+       :mime-version:content-type;\r
+       bh=15mfm5zWa44TnheeMmLKqOdZePwlX7QAHMuo7QWOa+I=;\r
+       b=vNEjWJQQXBcuIRLnIHhELwX/Hv7njQ0WYkIZmlu8Ph+pG1Jn4O/oOdvU/qzIF45WG3\r
+       PvxSX4A7QOPgfQftN9oV1r7jtxJbdFgvu87SF1C54Wmt1DezheG5gCJkgtH7GdMW81sD\r
+       sBzGoU2wOIhmewZE7UadFnHsNWvyENgH2r1vw=\r
+Received: by 10.204.154.28 with SMTP id m28mr3517503bkw.54.1328277920819;\r
+       Fri, 03 Feb 2012 06:05:20 -0800 (PST)\r
+Received: from localhost ([91.144.186.21])\r
+       by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e17sm13905643bkz.13.2012.02.03.06.05.19\r
+       (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);\r
+       Fri, 03 Feb 2012 06:05:19 -0800 (PST)\r
+From: Dmitry Kurochkin <dmitry.kurochkin@gmail.com>\r
+To: Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net>,\r
+ notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] test: add check for <expected> filename argument for\r
+       test_expect_equal_file\r
+In-Reply-To: <87zkd1p12c.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>\r
+References: <1328141050-30356-1-git-send-email-dmitry.kurochkin@gmail.com>\r
+       <1328141050-30356-2-git-send-email-dmitry.kurochkin@gmail.com>\r
+       <87zkd1p12c.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>\r
+User-Agent: Notmuch/0.11+139~gd9b7cab (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1\r
+       (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)\r
+Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:04:05 +0400\r
+Message-ID: <87sjishv3e.fsf@gmail.com>\r
+MIME-Version: 1.0\r
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii\r
+X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13\r
+Precedence: list\r
+List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."\r
+       <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,\r
+       <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>\r
+List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>\r
+List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>\r
+List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,\r
+       <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>\r
+X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:05:26 -0000\r
+\r
+On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 10:00:59 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net> wrote:\r
+> Hey, Dmitry.  I'm so sorry I sent my last email on your original patch\r
+> before I saw this new series.  I do now like your original proposal\r
+> better, since it shows the diff based the names the caller provides,\r
+> which I now agree is probably the clearest and most robust solution.\r
+> The second patch in this series could still go through, though, no\r
+> matter what version of the change to test_expect_equal_file we go with.\r
+> \r
+\r
+Actually, we can do both: check file name for consistent diff order\r
+(from expected to actual) and use file names that the caller provides.\r
+\r
+What do you think?\r
+\r
+Regards,\r
+  Dmitry\r
+\r
+> jamie.\r