From d9637ae7401047fd089ed3665eced8e6cd1a1ad4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Martin von Zweigbergk Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 16:40:31 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] 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 b319e3173a95 (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 | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/tests/test-flagprocessor.t b/tests/test-flagprocessor.t index d3d83ed3af..ec22245400 100644 --- a/tests/test-flagprocessor.t +++ b/tests/test-flagprocessor.t @@ -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 ..