ervin added a comment.
In D26129#582392 <https://phabricator.kde.org/D26129#582392>, @tcanabrava wrote: > I didn't blindly change anything, everything I did I tested either by running the unittests or recompilling and testing the settings of applications. Sure I know you did this, otherwise I think I'd call you criminal. ;-) More seriously, I find the test suite of kconfig_compiler unfortunately very slim on error cases (as in XML with crap in them) so that's why we should try to keep in mind "creative" users during reviews. As a corollary, the absence of failing tests doesn't mean the absence of bugs being introduced. As I'm trying to highlight in my comment below, I think that in that particular case moving away from iterators introduce a regression in behavior and information provided to the user in case of bogus data. INLINE COMMENTS > tcanabrava wrote in kconfig_compiler.cpp:2119 > if two items in the list have the same values the KConfig XML is wrong and > the generated code will not compile. I don't see an issue with it. Well, there's a difference between generating malformed code and generating well formed code which doesn't compile for grammar reasons. Previously it wouldn't compile with a proper error (two parameters with the same name) now it would in most case give a totally unrelated error since the tokenizer would go haywire. REPOSITORY R237 KConfig REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D26129 To: tcanabrava, ervin Cc: ervin, kde-frameworks-devel, LeGast00n, GB_2, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
