Re: [ANN] lisp/ob-tangle-sync.el

[Mehmet Tekman]

Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@posteo.net> writes:

> Another meetup is on July 26. https://emacs-berlin.org/
> Or we can arrange a jitsi call.

Sure, I can be there tomorrow!

> To name them, you can use separate ert-deftest statements.

Oh sure, but I don't want to clutter the library.

> Also, see the attached modified version of your diff - I made it so
> that `should' failures immediately provide some clue about expected
> result value, that can help to identify which of the should clauses
> fails.

Ah nice, much appreciated thank you. I was hesitant to split out the
main testing function (previously called by `funcall') into its own
function out of the same fears as above, but I see now it's not the
only one.

> The tests are indeed not passing on vanilla Org. I assume that you
> tested them with your other patch applied.

I tested them on upstream/main... or so I thought, though I now
realise that I needed to delete the =~/.emacs.d/straight/build/org=
directory to trigger a rebuild of org-mode for the current branch I
was on. (Live and learn...)

Problem: My testing patch is indeed not working on vanilla Org, but it
         contains tests that will (presumably) work with the new
         merge-params patch.

Question: What is the order of submission of patches?

          Do I submit a testing patch first which works strictly with
          vanilla Org first, and then a new merge-params function, and
          then yet another testing patch that is compliant with the
          new merge-params function?

          Or do I submit the new merge-params function, and then my
          testing patch on top?

Best,
Mehmet