[asdf-install-devel] Patches - unit test improvements, clarifying refactorings

[Dan Muller]

On 12/26/2007, "Gary King gwking-at-metabang.com |Open Source
Author/Both|" <...> wrote:

>These patches are great! Thanks for all your work.

My pleasure, I'm having fun sinking my teeth into some Lisp work. Much
more fun than C#, which is what I do weekdays...

>I've pulled all of the patches from before "Tue Dec 25 15:26:37
>Eastern Standard Time" except for this one:
>
>> Dan Muller<pikdj2002 at sneakemail.com>**20071225224604] {
>> hunk ./asdf-install/defpackage.lisp 6
>> -  #+asdf
>> -  (:import-from #:asdf #:*defined-systems*)
>> hunk ./asdf-install/installer.lisp 437
>> -         #+asdf
>> -         (*defined-systems* (if propagate $
>> -                              (make-hash-table :test 'equal)
>> -                              *defined-systems*))
>> }
>
>Unless I'm confused, this is necessary for the propagate command to
>work (hmmm, I wonder if there is a test for that?).

You may be right. I checked that *DEFINED-SYSTEMS* wasn't referenced
elsewhere in ASDF-INSTALL, but that was silly, because of course that's
not the point of binding it, is it? It's for its side-effect on ASDF.
But is this really necessary, given the :before method that's defined
for asdf::find-system elsewhere? (I think that's the name, I don't
have the source handy here at work.)

If I did get this wrong, it might have affected my other patches, e.g.
the choice of results that I test for in the unit test patch.

>I've also altered the patch that mostly involved tab/space
>consistency. In the deftestsuite test-asdf-install (below), you had
>removed the (:setup ...) clause. I've put it back but will remove it
>if there is a reason for it being removed.

This looks like a mistake on my part, I don't remember consciously
removing that, and can't think of a reason to, either. This might
explain one of the errors I was struggling with last night trying to run
the unit tests on Linux, although it didn't seem to disturb test runs
on Windows.

Thanks for reviewing these carefully!

-- DanM