You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
What do you want to do?
Print the representation of a parsed patch, for instance to split a large
patchset in one patch per patch file.
How to test if it works as expected? Please describe step by step.
Given a PatchSet object, repr(PatchSet) should return a string that should be
the same (or almost the same) as the original parsed file.
Then for each Patch in the patchset, repr(Patch) should return a string that
should be the same (or almost the same) as the original Patch in the parsed
file.
Then for each Hunk in a patch, repr(Hunk) should return a string that should be
the same (or almost the same) as the original Hunk in the Patch in the parsed
file.
It is OK if the line endings do not match exactly (i.e. hunkends may be
ignored) and default to Posix, and it is OK if the repr is not exactly the same
as the original one, but a good enough one.
Attached is a proposed patch with some tests, based on the latest HEAD @ r196
Original issue reported on code.google.com by [email protected] on 28 Mar 2013 at 11:00
Thanks for the patch. Dumping the output is useful. I surprised to realize how
obsessed I was with parsing patches that completely missed the point that
dumping parsed data is also very useful for debugging and checking that parsing
is ok.
As for __repr__ and __str__ - I don't think it will be a useful representation.
Accidentally type a name in console and you'll get several pages output. For
the patch, I'd prefer a diffstat output - it is more informative, but can still
be huge.
How about .dump() method instead? Or maybe you have a better name in mind?
Well, in keeping with your approach to naming things in the code elsewhere, you
have a fromstring() function already, so I named these tostring()
The attached patch is updated to reflect this
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
[email protected]
on 28 Mar 2013 at 11:00Attachments:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: