Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Test] Relax ordering assumption in max-commands-progress.ninja #712

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 1, 2021

Conversation

edymtt
Copy link
Contributor

@edymtt edymtt commented Jan 7, 2021

While most of the times output-2 is copied before output-1, in some
rare cases the opposite can happen (which seems reasonable since there
is no ordering requirement between the two).

Addresses rdar://72898516

While most of the times `output-2` is copied before `output-1`, in some
rare cases the opposite can happen (which seems reasonable since there
are not ordering between the two).

Addresses rdar://72898516
@edymtt edymtt requested a review from dmbryson January 7, 2021 20:19
@edymtt edymtt requested a review from ddunbar as a code owner January 7, 2021 20:19
@edymtt
Copy link
Contributor Author

edymtt commented Jan 7, 2021

@swift-ci please smoke test

@edymtt
Copy link
Contributor Author

edymtt commented Jan 7, 2021

My change as is would consider the following valid

[1/3] cp input-1 output-1
[1/3] cp input-2 output-2

but I think the main focus of those checks is comparing the ordering between the cp commands and the cat one

@edymtt
Copy link
Contributor Author

edymtt commented Jan 7, 2021

@swift-ci please smoke test macOS

@edymtt
Copy link
Contributor Author

edymtt commented Jan 29, 2021

@swift-ci please smoke test

@dmbryson dmbryson merged commit 53d12bc into swiftlang:main Feb 1, 2021
@jakepetroules
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks!

@edymtt edymtt deleted the output-1-output-2-any-order branch February 3, 2021 15:56
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants