Hi James,
On Sunday 03 Apr 2005 22:43, James Hawkins wrote:
On Apr 3, 2005 4:33 PM, James Hawkins truiken@gmail.com wrote: I see what's happening now. The original author of test_enum_value either didn't know about the 3 existing keys (maybe they were added later) or he thought they wouldn't have an effect on the outcome of the tests. What I will do now is make a new, clean subdirectory in which to run the tests with the new value.
By the look of it, the bug is that create_test_entries() creates the three TestN keys (N=1..3), but doesn't clean them after.
The question is still up in the air though about the order of insertion of new values.
I suspect the usual answer applies: if it can be demonstrated that an application depends on this behaviour, then we should support it.
HTH,
Paul