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&gt; + + * 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&gt; * 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)))) +