On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Thomas Helland
wrote:
> 2015-03-15 20:04 GMT+01:00 Connor Abbott :
>> On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Thomas Helland
>> wrote:
>>> 2015-03-15 16:47 GMT+01:00 Thomas Helland :
2015-03-13 23:37 GMT+01:00 Thomas Helland :
> So here comes the second version
2015-03-15 20:04 GMT+01:00 Connor Abbott :
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Thomas Helland
> wrote:
>> 2015-03-15 16:47 GMT+01:00 Thomas Helland :
>>> 2015-03-13 23:37 GMT+01:00 Thomas Helland :
So here comes the second version of this series.
I found a way to exercise the bug in the p
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Thomas Helland
wrote:
> 2015-03-15 16:47 GMT+01:00 Thomas Helland :
>> 2015-03-13 23:37 GMT+01:00 Thomas Helland :
>>> So here comes the second version of this series.
>>> I found a way to exercise the bug in the previous series.
>>> This makes the test fail where
2015-03-15 16:47 GMT+01:00 Thomas Helland :
> 2015-03-13 23:37 GMT+01:00 Thomas Helland :
>> So here comes the second version of this series.
>> I found a way to exercise the bug in the previous series.
>> This makes the test fail where it previously passed
>> and we instead ended up hitting assert
2015-03-13 23:37 GMT+01:00 Thomas Helland :
> So here comes the second version of this series.
> I found a way to exercise the bug in the previous series.
> This makes the test fail where it previously passed
> and we instead ended up hitting assertions in the code.
> This is not perfect, and sever
So here comes the second version of this series.
I found a way to exercise the bug in the previous series.
This makes the test fail where it previously passed
and we instead ended up hitting assertions in the code.
This is not perfect, and several different tests could
be added, but at least it add
