On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 3:52 AM, Allan McRae <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11/10/10 03:57, Xavier Chantry wrote: >> >> Signed-off-by: Xavier Chantry<[email protected]> >> --- >> test/pacman/tests/sync-sdd1.py | 15 +++++++++++++++ >> test/pacman/tests/sync-sdd2.py | 15 +++++++++++++++ >> test/pacman/tests/sync-sdd3.py | 15 +++++++++++++++ >> 3 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> create mode 100644 test/pacman/tests/sync-sdd1.py >> create mode 100644 test/pacman/tests/sync-sdd2.py >> create mode 100644 test/pacman/tests/sync-sdd3.py > > Are you proposing a new test naming scheme here too? Because I like it... > > Anyway, ack to the tests. Hopefully cases 2 and 3 were already covered, but > it does not hurt to explicitly have these as a group. >
Well you spotted exactly the two problems I had. First I tried to look for a pactest with -S that failed because a versioned dependency I found provision022.py that almost suited my need. But then with this stupid numbering with almost complete disorder, I never know how to insert new pactests. On one hand, we had 'provision001' style naming describing a functionality, on the other hand 'sync001' which only gives the operation. I just mixed the two to create a new group. Also I thought it was a good illustration for -Sdd to show how -S, -Sd and -Sdd behave in the same situation.
