about summary refs log tree commit diff stats
path: root/cpp/032array.cc
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorKartik K. Agaram <vc@akkartik.com>2015-05-02 11:49:11 -0700
committerKartik K. Agaram <vc@akkartik.com>2015-05-02 11:49:11 -0700
commitd9a7e6abc7dba8e84a5e80a6593145f1aaeb6f6c (patch)
treeaf2345c92315d623124d5612931914c54042a42b /cpp/032array.cc
parent981cc9e8e9fd2f76b4dced8b88f3dac41c87d761 (diff)
downloadmu-d9a7e6abc7dba8e84a5e80a6593145f1aaeb6f6c.tar.gz
1239 - scheduler bugfix
In the process, some extra unit tests as well. The final scenario is newly fixed.

Between the earlier support for '%' escaping C code inside scenarios,
and the previous commit, we now actually have the ability to setup
the Routines data structure just so to simulate different situations.

One unanticipated but happy consequence of ignoring run(""): I can interleave
'+' lines with '-' lines to avoid making any ordering assertions between '+'
lines. So the '+' lines here are checked in order:

  +layer1: a
  +layer3: c

But here they will pass even if present out of order:

  +layer1: a
  -layer2: b
  +layer3: c

This might be too confusing. In general, relying on run("") is just a temporary
hack. It might well have even worse counter-intuitive effects.

At least I'm not seeing any string-escaping issues so far.
Diffstat (limited to 'cpp/032array.cc')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions
>127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273