From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: "John Keeping" <john@keeping.me.uk>,
"Jonathan Nieder" <jrnieder@gmail.com>,
"SZEDER Gábor" <szeder@ira.uka.de>,
"Felipe Contreras" <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>,
git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Re: [PATCH 3/4] t: rev-parse-parents: avoid yoda conditions
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 14:36:00 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130904183559.GA3465@sigill.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqq1u54o5c4.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 10:38:03AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> This is way off tangent, but I am somewhat sympathetic to Felipe's
> >> "compare actual with expect", with reservations.
> >
> > This isn't an argument either way, but note that JUnit (and NUnit and
> > PHPUnit) all have assertEquals methods that take the arguments in the
> > order "expect, actual". I've always assumed that Git's test framework
> > was imitating that,...
>
> No. See 82ebb0b6 (add test_cmp function for test scripts,
> 2008-03-12). The "test_cmp" was a replacement for "diff -u", and
> the same order we fed "diff -u", i.e. expect then actual, was
> carried over.
I don't think it was intentional at the time. But over the intervening 5
years, I have noticed that I certainly think of "test_cmp A B" as
"differences from A to B", and the order makes sense. IOW, the "test_cmp
is diff" abstraction is leaky, and that is fine (if it were not leaky,
then order would not matter at all, but it clearly does).
But let's take a step back. This seems like an endian-ness issue to me.
I.e., some people prefer one order for test assertions, and other people
prefer the other. Is anyone actually right, or is this simply a matter
of preference? And if it is simply a matter of preference, then why
bother going through the pain of changing the current project standard?
Though I prefer the current, I can certainly live and adapt to a changed
standard, and I do not mind doing so if there is a good reason. But I've
yet to see any argument beyond "it is not what I like". Which to me
argues for the status quo as the path of least resistance.
-Peff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-09-04 18:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-09-02 6:30 [PATCH 0/4] t: rev-parse-parents: cleanups Felipe Contreras
2013-09-02 6:30 ` [PATCH 1/4] t: rev-parse-parents: fix style Felipe Contreras
2013-09-02 6:30 ` [PATCH 2/4] t: rev-parse-parents: fix weird ! notation Felipe Contreras
2013-09-02 6:30 ` [PATCH 3/4] t: rev-parse-parents: avoid yoda conditions Felipe Contreras
2013-09-03 7:12 ` Jeff King
2013-09-03 7:51 ` SZEDER Gábor
2013-09-03 8:03 ` Jeff King
2013-09-03 10:45 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-09-03 11:10 ` SZEDER Gábor
2013-09-03 13:39 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-09-03 15:08 ` SZEDER Gábor
2013-09-03 17:04 ` [PATCH 0/4] " Jonathan Nieder
2013-09-03 17:05 ` [PATCH 1/4] rev-parse test: modernize quoting and whitespace Jonathan Nieder
2013-09-03 17:06 ` [PATCH 2/4] rev-parse test: use test_must_fail, not "if <command>; then false; fi" Jonathan Nieder
2013-09-03 21:56 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-09-03 17:07 ` [PATCH 3/4] rev-parse test: use test_cmp instead of "test" builtin Jonathan Nieder
2013-09-03 20:01 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-09-04 4:28 ` Jonathan Nieder
2013-09-03 22:01 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-09-03 17:11 ` [PATCH 4/4] rev-parse test: use standard test functions for setup Jonathan Nieder
2013-09-03 17:15 ` [PATCH v2 " Jonathan Nieder
2013-09-03 17:20 ` [PATCH 0/4] Re: [PATCH 3/4] t: rev-parse-parents: avoid yoda conditions Jeff King
2013-09-03 21:53 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-09-04 16:47 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-09-04 17:13 ` John Keeping
2013-09-04 17:38 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-09-04 18:36 ` Jeff King [this message]
2013-09-04 19:14 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-09-08 3:11 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-09-08 4:06 ` Jeff King
2013-09-08 4:13 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-09-08 4:14 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-09-08 4:26 ` Jeff King
2013-09-08 4:52 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-09-08 5:02 ` Jeff King
2013-09-08 23:25 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-09-08 23:45 ` Jeff King
2013-09-09 0:45 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-09-08 18:33 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-09-08 23:18 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-09-08 8:11 ` Philip Oakley
2013-09-03 17:31 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-09-03 17:33 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-09-03 21:52 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-09-02 6:30 ` [PATCH 4/4] t: rev-parse-parents: simplify setup Felipe Contreras
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=20130904183559.GA3465@sigill.intra.peff.net \
--to=peff@peff.net \
--cc=felipe.contreras@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=john@keeping.me.uk \
--cc=jrnieder@gmail.com \
--cc=szeder@ira.uka.de \
/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).