done Robert Ramey David Abrahams wrote:
"Robert Ramey" <ramey@rrsd.com> writes:
Although I don't mind doing c), I would appreciate it if you'd rework the test yourself, before I start.
Hmm - I was just thinking the the header order in test_export.cpp would be inverted.
That's what I thought, too, but I wanted to make absolutely sure I didn't have a different interpretation than you. This should be trivial for you to accomplish.
This would break test_export until the new export.hpp was in.
That's why I wrote:
You could put the new test on a branch to avoid breaking the regressions.
Did you miss that?
In case you need help:
cvs tag -b serialization_header_order test_export.cpp cvs up -r serialization_header_order test_export.cpp cvs edit test_export.cpp
<edit the test>
cvs commit -m "test for dave" test_export.cpp cvs up -A test_export.cpp
Now you're back to the HEAD.
Again not big deal as far as I'm concerned since I don't think tests are even being run on the HEAD right now. If it turns out that more needs to be done to make the test past, then that would be sort of a red flag indicating that users would have to change all thier programs (not just archive_class headers) which shouldn't be necessary if I understand your proposal correctly.
Exactly. That's why I want you to make exactly the acceptable change to the test.
Note that I'm also asuming that no new information is added to the archive itself - which would create quite a splash.
For this reason, (aside from the fact that serialization has more or less exhausted its budget for testing resources). I think this is better than making a new test. It will verify the user code won't have to be changed.
I never meant to suggest making a new test. I was suggesting that you change the test yourself.