From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] p5310: Fix broken && chain in performance test Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 02:14:45 -0400 Message-ID: <20150627061444.GB9353@peff.net> References: <1435354020-11675-1-git-send-email-sbeller@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , "git@vger.kernel.org" To: Stefan Beller X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Jun 27 08:15:03 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Z8jOJ-0008Hb-38 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 08:15:03 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750714AbbF0GOt (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Jun 2015 02:14:49 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:52608 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752006AbbF0GOr (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Jun 2015 02:14:47 -0400 Received: (qmail 17296 invoked by uid 102); 27 Jun 2015 06:14:47 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 01:14:47 -0500 Received: (qmail 22874 invoked by uid 107); 27 Jun 2015 06:14:49 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 02:14:49 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 27 Jun 2015 02:14:45 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 03:34:19PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote: > > Thanks. How did you find this (does the auto &&-chain test apply to > > t/perf stuff as well)? > > Apparently the &&-chain tests for it as I got a warning for it while > benchmarking some changes in ALLOC_GROW. (which originally > should have fixed the coverity false positives, but I was side tracked > wondering about performance) That makes sense; we use test_expect_success here, so I think it is good for it to check that we are actually creating a sane exit status. It looks like we do not extend the same protection to test_perf (it uses test_eval_, bnot test_run_). That is probably OK, as those tests are more about measuring the time than about correctness. OTOH, we do notice when a test_perf reports failure, so perhaps it would make sense to extend &&-chaining checks there. -Peff