Test upgrading mod with conflict on its own provides #2431
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
HebaruSan
added
Tests
politas
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 28, 2018
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
#2430 added a test of the sanity checker to make sure that multiple versions of a mod that conflicts with its own identifier don't conflict with one another. This is a requirement for the way upgrades work.
However, users also reported the same problem for a slightly different scenario. A mod can also self-conflict if it both
"provides"an identifier and"conflicts"with that same identifier.VesselMoverContinuedandMechJeb2-ROsuffer from this variant of the problem (they provide and conflict withVesselMoverandMechJeb2, respectively). The actual fix covers both scenarios, but the test only checks conflicts with the identifier, so it's not inconceivable that some future change might break them separately and not be caught.This pull request adds a test to catch this case.