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...@daniel.shahaf.name> > wrote: > > pbu...@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
