From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Manuel Giraud Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [External] : [emacs bookmark.el] Sorting by last set Date: Fri, 27 May 2022 15:11:57 +0200 Message-ID: <875ylr15nm.fsf@elite.giraud> References: <877d6b88pz.fsf@elite.giraud> <875ylv6j58.fsf@elite.giraud> <87o7zngcgf.fsf@gnus.org> <87k0a93g4z.fsf@elite.giraud> <87y1yp1vnw.fsf@elite.giraud> <877d69lyt2.fsf@red-bean.com> <87ilpsd0hv.fsf@gnus.org> <87tu9c1c0k.fsf@elite.giraud> <87leuo12fh.fsf@elite.giraud> <87zgj38ds1.fsf@gnus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="7492"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (berkeley-unix) Cc: Stefan Monnier , Karl Fogel , Drew Adams , emacs-devel To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri May 27 15:12:56 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nuZlw-0001i4-Bi for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 27 May 2022 15:12:56 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47142 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nuZlv-0003fR-5y for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 27 May 2022 09:12:55 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:52478) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nuZl5-0002YV-Ba for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 27 May 2022 09:12:03 -0400 Original-Received: from ledu-giraud.fr ([51.159.28.247]:37939) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nuZl3-0007t7-Ex for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 27 May 2022 09:12:03 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; s=rsa; bh=8ej7YjguumkeIG3/ JjinkkSJqfrJI52uxng+vx97rVQ=; h=in-reply-to:date:references:subject: cc:to:from; d=ledu-giraud.fr; b=Bg1Gt8Dzoroa9gyo9e6cWJX1tbVsHYOmbnqeEA 9G1QEzsm+IXchUPvfoufAlriWuXJ0EqDNONikNLyGj4FPNv7VcrtzClLCCm6BUQV1B12OT L8dEw8nOyLS/sQJSz56QXyRpBLK8nEetQpPhlTBMXZX2vOUIrpWUZmPuNGL+cg8vwiM6pJ WG0AjLujlk3CAg4/9rObGdysuE+KqJMl7+vx0xXJ3SjvKM25o2Wa/KV2EnNSiR33tXx0wp cMDTyVv/b2EZCJqlNDyFNKq4yD4OVL8WsqjAKsLbLngEUvNQn0rvHRIYifuLCdZ0GqndHn 6kTcXjMcyQZAhF2xFKcFtOyg== Original-Received: from elite.giraud ( [10.1.1.1]) by ledu-giraud.fr (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 6f13e4e7 (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256:NO); Fri, 27 May 2022 15:11:58 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <87zgj38ds1.fsf@gnus.org> (Lars Ingebrigtsen's message of "Fri, 27 May 2022 12:34:38 +0200") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=51.159.28.247; envelope-from=manuel@ledu-giraud.fr; helo=ledu-giraud.fr X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:290311 Archived-At: Lars Ingebrigtsen writes: > I tried the patch, and it seems to lead to three test failures: > > 3 unexpected results: > FAILED bookmark-tests-make-record > FAILED bookmark-tests-make-record-list > FAILED bookmark-tests-set Oups, I didn't run a "make check" =F0=9F=98=85. With the patch a call to (bookmark-make-record) will have an up to date last-modified field so it cannot be equal to a static bookmark record. For the same reason, two successive calls won't be equal. Should I try to fix those tests or fix my code? --=20 Manuel Giraud