CVS update by vins xemacs/tests/automated ...
User: vins
Date: 05/12/10 04:31:11
Branch: xemacs/tests release-21-4
xemacs/tests/automated release-21-4
Modified: xemacs/tests/automated syntax-tests.el
Log:
Added new (failing) syntax tests.
Revision Changes Path
1.2.2.43 +5 -0 XEmacs/xemacs/tests/ChangeLog
Index: ChangeLog
===================================================================
RCS file: /pack/xemacscvs/XEmacs/xemacs/tests/ChangeLog,v
retrieving revision 1.2.2.42
retrieving revision 1.2.2.43
diff -u -p -r1.2.2.42 -r1.2.2.43
--- ChangeLog 2005/12/08 01:31:22 1.2.2.42
+++ ChangeLog 2005/12/10 03:31:06 1.2.2.43
＠＠ -1,3 +1,8 ＠＠
+2005-12-08 Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org>
+
+ * automated/syntax-tests.el (backward-up-list): New test.
+ Thanks to Zacjev Evgeny for report, Aidan Kehoe for reproduction.
+
2005-05-10 Aidan Kehoe <kehoea(a)parhasard.net>
* automated/mule-tests.el: Test that starting a process in a
1.2.2.2 +39 -0 XEmacs/xemacs/tests/automated/syntax-tests.el
Index: syntax-tests.el
===================================================================
RCS file: /pack/xemacscvs/XEmacs/xemacs/tests/automated/syntax-tests.el,v
retrieving revision 1.2.2.1
retrieving revision 1.2.2.2
diff -u -p -r1.2.2.1 -r1.2.2.2
--- syntax-tests.el 2002/10/31 15:09:16 1.2.2.1
+++ syntax-tests.el 2005/12/10 03:31:11 1.2.2.2
＠＠ -155,3 +155,42 ＠＠
;; this last used to crash
(parse-partial-sexp point (point-max)))))
+
+;; Test backward-up-list
+;; Known-Bug: report = Evgeny Zacjev ca 2005-12-01, confirm = Aidan Kehoe
+
+(with-temp-buffer
+ ;; We are now using the standard syntax table. Thus there's no need to
+ ;; worry about a bogus syntax setting, eg, in a Gnus Article buffer the
+ ;; bug doesn't manifest.
+
+ ;; value of point to the immediate left of this character
+ ;; 0 1 2
+ ;; 1234 56789 012 34567 890 12 3456 7
+ (insert "a ( \"b (c\" (\"defg\") \")\") h\n")
+
+ ;; #### This test should check *every* position.
+ (flet ((backward-up-list-moves-point-from-to (start expected-end)
+ (goto-char start)
+ (backward-up-list 1)
+ (= (point) expected-end)))
+ (Known-Bug-Expect-Failure
+ ;; Evgeny's case
+ (Assert (backward-up-list-moves-point-from-to 16 12)))
+ (Assert (backward-up-list-moves-point-from-to 19 12))
+ (Assert (backward-up-list-moves-point-from-to 20 3))
+ (Known-Bug-Expect-Failure
+ (Assert (backward-up-list-moves-point-from-to 22 3)))
+ (Known-Bug-Expect-Failure
+ (Assert (backward-up-list-moves-point-from-to 23 3)))
+ (Assert (backward-up-list-moves-point-from-to 24 3))
+ ;; This is maybe a little tricky, since we don't expect the position
+ ;; check to happen -- so use an illegal expected position
+ ;; I don't think there's any other way for this to fail that way,
+ ;; barring hardware error....
+ (Check-Error-Message syntax-error
+ "Unbalanced parentheses"
+ (backward-up-list-moves-point-from-to 25 nil))
+ ;; special-case check that point didn't move
+ (Assert (= (point) 25))))
+