Re: [PATCH] cmake: generalize the handling of the `UNIT_TEST_OBJS` list

[Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>]

Hi,

On Mon, 23 Sep 2024, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> "Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
> writes:
>
> > With a4f50bb1e9b (t/unit-tests: introduce reftable library, 2024-09-16),
> > however, the `UNIT_TEST_OBJS` list became a trio, and the CMake
> > definition has to be adjusted again. Now that we can use the
> > `parse_makefile_for_sources()` function without many complications,
> > let's do that.
>
> Am I correct to understand that it is not "trio"-ness (has three
> things) that makes the approach feasible, but the fact that all
> three things are concrete values?

No, the fact that a third entry was added made it obvious that adding
hard-coded equivalents to the CMake definition is too much of a
whac-a-mole thing and that the `Makefile` parsing approach would be
preferable. With just two items, it was still kind of okay to duplicate
the list, but three is a trend.

> The longer-term aspiration is to migrate everything to clar-based
> unit tests, so the list will hopefully keep getting shorter and then
> become empty (https://lore.kernel.org/git/Zt_lLsnylKJ9uoqj@pks.im/).

Once it becomes empty, I will have to send another CMake-related patch
similar to when the `REFTABLE_TEST_OBJS` list went away, as the CMake
definition cannot handle such empty lists.

Ciao,
Johannes