From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>,
Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>,
git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] t6024-recursive-merge.sh: hide spurious output when not running verbosely
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 23:10:05 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080301041005.GA8969@coredump.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7v1w6vb9w4.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 03:50:03PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Actually, I think this might be a bit more sensible approach.
>
> -- >8 --
> tests: allow optional clean-up phrase to expect_success/failure
>
> When one test modifies the state of the test repository that the later
> tests may depend on, you may want to add a clean-up action that is run
> regardless of the outcome of the main part of the test.
>
> This can now be specified as the third parameter to test_expect_success
> and test_expect_failure functions.
I think your heart is in the right place with this patch, but I doubt
that it is going to be all that productive in practice. Most tests
consist of a long list of commands, and cleaning up properly after every
possible failure case is going to be a lot of work. And worse, since the
tests generally _don't_ fail, you have no way to test that your cleanup
is reasonable.
So I think we will end up in the case where a few failed tests will
properly clean themselves up and let further tests proceed, but most
failures will leave a big question. In other words, what problem have we
solved? If tests N and N+k both fail, would you, even with this patch,
suspect N+k of actually failing, or would you first go and debug test N?
Is that any different than what you do now?
-Peff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-03-01 4:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-02-29 22:23 [PATCH] t6024-recursive-merge.sh: hide spurious output when not running verbosely Mike Hommey
2008-02-29 22:53 ` Jeff King
2008-02-29 22:58 ` Mike Hommey
2008-02-29 23:01 ` Jeff King
2008-02-29 23:15 ` Junio C Hamano
2008-02-29 23:54 ` Jeff King
2008-02-29 23:34 ` Johannes Schindelin
2008-02-29 23:50 ` Junio C Hamano
2008-03-01 4:10 ` Jeff King [this message]
2008-03-01 4:27 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2008-03-01 4:28 ` Jeff King
2008-03-01 5:40 ` 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=20080301041005.GA8969@coredump.intra.peff.net \
--to=peff@peff.net \
--cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=mh@glandium.org \
/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).