That's the expected change. I would appreciate independent confirmation; is anyone interested in taking a little time to understand the case? After that, I think it will make sense to push this, since the code was reviewed last week and is just enabled by this patch.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Anonymous
-
2020-02-06
Patch: review --> countdown
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Anonymous
-
2020-02-06
Patch on countdown for Feb 8th - if you get no feedback it can stay on the countdown for another cycle.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Please don't lengthen the countdown. My request for feedback was aimed toward justifying accelerating it rather than signalling a lack of confidence that it's good. I don't want to jump the queue unilaterally, even when I'm confident.
Thanks.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
So on which part do you want confirmation? I can certainly run the tests locally again, but the result will probably the same as James'. I'm not familiar with the already reviewed code, so not qualified to comment on that.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
My request was unclear. I'm asking for someone to look at the test case and judge whether the new actual output is the expected output. Yes, it's different than the previous actual output—but is it now correct?
I believe it is correct, but I want to set an example of getting appropriate feedback before breaking from the normal routine and pushing early.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
It's definitely an improvement and what I'd exepct from reading the test (I was first confused that 'TEST' is centered, but that's because it is the outer StaffGroup, right?). I can't judge whether it's correct though, I'm not super familiar with the context stuff.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
"What I'd expect from reading the test" is what I was hoping for. There was plenty of attention when this test and others were created. I'll push this change soon and then celebrate the end of a big unplanned task that has been a long time in coming. Thanks!
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Passes make, make check and a full make doc.
That's the expected change. I would appreciate independent confirmation; is anyone interested in taking a little time to understand the case? After that, I think it will make sense to push this, since the code was reviewed last week and is just enabled by this patch.
Patch on countdown for Feb 8th - if you get no feedback it can stay on the countdown for another cycle.
Please don't lengthen the countdown. My request for feedback was aimed toward justifying accelerating it rather than signalling a lack of confidence that it's good. I don't want to jump the queue unilaterally, even when I'm confident.
Thanks.
So on which part do you want confirmation? I can certainly run the tests locally again, but the result will probably the same as James'. I'm not familiar with the already reviewed code, so not qualified to comment on that.
My request was unclear. I'm asking for someone to look at the test case and judge whether the new actual output is the expected output. Yes, it's different than the previous actual output—but is it now correct?
I believe it is correct, but I want to set an example of getting appropriate feedback before breaking from the normal routine and pushing early.
It's definitely an improvement and what I'd exepct from reading the test (I was first confused that 'TEST' is centered, but that's because it is the outer StaffGroup, right?). I can't judge whether it's correct though, I'm not super familiar with the context stuff.
"What I'd expect from reading the test" is what I was hoping for. There was plenty of attention when this test and others were created. I'll push this change soon and then celebrate the end of a big unplanned task that has been a long time in coming. Thanks!