Merge lp://qastaging/~villemvainio/ipython/trunk-dev into lp://qastaging/ipython/0.11

1155: I am not familiar with the shadow history and this description still leaves me wondering exactly what it is and why it exists. Is the difference that the shadown history include *everything*, but just the current history? Are there any performance issues?

1153: when IPython.ipapi.TryNext() is raised, it should be passed a string giving a sensible error message.

1151: can we add a test for these new things? Might be tough though.

1149: can we add a test for this?

On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 7:30 AM, Brian Granger <email address hidden> wrote:

Vote: Needs Fixing
> 1155: I am not familiar with the shadow history and this description still
> leaves me wondering exactly what it is and why it exists. Is the difference
> that the shadown history include *everything*, but just the current history?
> Are there any performance issues?

Ok, I'll add more meat to the description. So far, I haven't seen any
performance issues (apart from hist -g being taking a while if there is lots
of stuff). So far, nobody has complained ;-)

> 1153: when IPython.ipapi.TryNext() is raised, it should be passed a string
> giving a sensible error message.

This is not how trynext works. It's not an "error", but a suggestion to use
the next hook.

>
> 1151: can we add a test for these new things? Might be tough though.
>
> 1149: can we add a test for this?

Will check later.

--
Ville M. Vainio
http://tinyurl.com/vainio

I didn't add the tests for sh profile prefilter (because the new prefilter would have to be factored out to aonther module if that was wanted).

Rev 1149 is a trivial fix that can't break anything. I can add the unit test in my another (unittest) branch, but I would want to merge this branch asap since it has a critical fix for macros.

Rev 1149 may be a trivial fix - I am not worried about the fix breaking anything else. Rather, I want to make sure that we have a test in place that will ensure that the original bug doesn't creep back in at some point.

I agree that we should merge this ASAP though.

Once you add a test for rev 1149, let's go ahead and merge. Looks great otherwise. Thanks for clarifying the shadow history stuff! If you want to do the test for 1149 in a different branch, please at least add a bug ticket about adding the test if you don't do that right away. With those caveats, I am marking this a ready to merge. I will let you decide how to handle the test for 1149 and do the merge yourself though.