From: Alexandr Miloslavskiy <alexandr.miloslavskiy@syntevo.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: Alexandr Miloslavskiy via GitGitGadget <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>,
git@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>,
Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] t: rework tests for --pathspec-from-file
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2020 18:42:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0b54d95c-a5e0-c156-b972-a1e171678785@syntevo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqimll3lmn.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
On 08.01.2020 18:26, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> I will implement the next --pathspec-from-file patches as if this
>> third patch was accepted (that is, without copy&pasted tests).
>
> I am not sure if that is a good idea. I'd rather see the planned
> new changes not to be taken hostage of the third step.
In my understanding, the new patches will not be taken hostage, they
will simply adopt the new approach. Everything will work just fine
whether or not third step is present.
> Besides, with the third step, your preference is not to test the
> behaviour of end-user facing commands that would learn the option at
> all and only test the underlying machinery with test-tool tests, no?
That's not exactly correct. Third step removes duplicate tests that give
no real benefit. With test-tool tests in place and succceeding, these
duplicate tests are super unlikely to fail.
I will still provide a few tests for every new command to make sure that
said command works as intended. I will only skip indirectly testing
global API again and again.
> If you are not adding tests for the higher-level end-user facing
> commands as part of these new series, would it make a difference if
> the codebase has the third step applied (i.e. missing tests for the
> end-user facing commands that have already learned the option) or
> not (i.e. the commands that have already learned the option are
> still tested end-to-end)?
I will be adding good tests and skip useless tests. For new commands, it
doesn't really matter if "third step" patch is applied or not.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-08 17:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-30 17:42 [PATCH 0/3] t: rework tests for --pathspec-from-file Alexandr Miloslavskiy via GitGitGadget
2019-12-30 17:42 ` [PATCH 1/3] t: fix quotes " Alexandr Miloslavskiy via GitGitGadget
2019-12-30 17:42 ` [PATCH 2/3] t: directly test parse_pathspec_file() Alexandr Miloslavskiy via GitGitGadget
2019-12-30 18:52 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-12-30 19:16 ` Alexandr Miloslavskiy
2019-12-30 17:42 ` [PATCH 3/3] t: drop copy&pasted tests for --pathspec-from-file Alexandr Miloslavskiy via GitGitGadget
2019-12-30 19:15 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] t: rework " Alexandr Miloslavskiy via GitGitGadget
2019-12-30 19:15 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] t: fix quotes " Alexandr Miloslavskiy via GitGitGadget
2019-12-30 21:55 ` Eric Sunshine
2019-12-31 0:26 ` Jonathan Nieder
2019-12-31 10:01 ` Alexandr Miloslavskiy
2019-12-30 19:15 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] t: directly test parse_pathspec_file() Alexandr Miloslavskiy via GitGitGadget
2019-12-30 19:15 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] t: drop copy&pasted tests for --pathspec-from-file Alexandr Miloslavskiy via GitGitGadget
2019-12-31 9:53 ` [PATCH v3 0/3] t: rework " Alexandr Miloslavskiy via GitGitGadget
2019-12-31 9:53 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] t: fix quotes " Alexandr Miloslavskiy via GitGitGadget
2019-12-31 9:53 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] t: directly test parse_pathspec_file() Alexandr Miloslavskiy via GitGitGadget
2019-12-31 9:53 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] t: drop copy&pasted tests for --pathspec-from-file Alexandr Miloslavskiy via GitGitGadget
2019-12-31 10:15 ` [PATCH v4 0/3] t: rework " Alexandr Miloslavskiy via GitGitGadget
2019-12-31 10:15 ` [PATCH v4 1/3] t: fix quotes " Alexandr Miloslavskiy via GitGitGadget
2019-12-31 10:15 ` [PATCH v4 2/3] t: directly test parse_pathspec_file() Alexandr Miloslavskiy via GitGitGadget
2019-12-31 10:15 ` [PATCH v4 3/3] t: drop copy&pasted tests for --pathspec-from-file Alexandr Miloslavskiy via GitGitGadget
2020-01-07 21:13 ` [PATCH v4 0/3] t: rework " Junio C Hamano
2020-01-08 15:32 ` Alexandr Miloslavskiy
2020-01-08 17:26 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-01-08 17:42 ` Alexandr Miloslavskiy [this message]
2020-01-08 18:50 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=0b54d95c-a5e0-c156-b972-a1e171678785@syntevo.com \
--to=alexandr.miloslavskiy@syntevo.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitgitgadget@gmail.com \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=jrnieder@gmail.com \
--cc=sunshine@sunshineco.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).