From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Shawn O. Pearce" Subject: Re: [PATCH] t6024-recursive-merge.sh: hide spurious output when not running verbosely Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 23:27:39 -0500 Message-ID: <20080301042739.GX8410@spearce.org> References: <1204323805-23185-1-git-send-email-mh@glandium.org> <7v1w6vb9w4.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20080301041005.GA8969@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , Johannes Schindelin , Mike Hommey , git@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Mar 01 05:28:27 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JVJKi-0002wF-Np for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sat, 01 Mar 2008 05:28:25 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752452AbYCAE1s (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 23:27:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752187AbYCAE1s (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 23:27:48 -0500 Received: from corvette.plexpod.net ([64.38.20.226]:34550 "EHLO corvette.plexpod.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752068AbYCAE1s (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 23:27:48 -0500 Received: from cpe-74-70-48-173.nycap.res.rr.com ([74.70.48.173] helo=asimov.home.spearce.org) by corvette.plexpod.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JVJJo-0004at-9N; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 23:27:28 -0500 Received: by asimov.home.spearce.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5013020FBAE; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 23:27:39 -0500 (EST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080301041005.GA8969@coredump.intra.peff.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - corvette.plexpod.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - spearce.org Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jeff King wrote: > 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. > > 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? I agree with Jeff. It is unnecessary complexity that won't be tested well enough to be worthwhile. This is why when tests start to fail I just rerun the specific case with "-i -v" and let the test stop on the first failure, *fix that one case* and run again to see if anything else is going to barf. -- Shawn.