From: Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>
To: Stephan Beyer <s-beyer@gmx.net>
Cc: git <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/16] bisect: add test for the bisect algorithm
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 12:40:50 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAP8UFD27f3zmrLrvyCuMfs6ijt7MtLB8rX0Ykvfar3kidpm6LQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56D0C5E0.2020703@gmx.net>
Hi Stephan,
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Stephan Beyer <s-beyer@gmx.net> wrote:
> Hi Christian,
>
> On 02/26/2016 07:53 AM, Christian Couder wrote:
>>> +test_expect_success 'bisect algorithm works in linear history with an odd number of commits' '
>>> + git bisect start A7 &&
>>> + git bisect next &&
>>> + test "$(git rev-parse HEAD)" = "$(git rev-parse A3)" \
>>> + -o "$(git rev-parse HEAD)" = "$(git rev-parse A4)"
>>
>> I thought that we should not use "-o" and "-a" but instead "|| test"
>> and "&& test".
>
> Why is this?
I think it is because it might not be very portable, but I am not sure
I remember well the previous discussions about this.
> I understand the && instead of -a thing (test atomicity),
> however, for || this results in an ugly
>
> + git bisect next &&
> + ( test "$(git rev-parse HEAD)" = "$(git rev-parse A3)" ||
> + test "$(git rev-parse HEAD)" = "$(git rev-parse A4)" )
>
> Right? (Otherwise a failure of e.g. "git bisect start A7" would run
> the command after || (which may still be fine in some cases but is wrong
> in most of the other cases).
Yeah.
By the way maybe t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh is paranoid, but it does
some of those checks like:
HASH4=$(git rev-parse --verify HEAD)
and later:
rev_hash4=$(git rev-parse --verify HEAD) &&
test "$rev_hash4" = "$HASH4" &&
So it uses "--verify" and also often puts the "git rev-parse" on a
separate line...
> However, what do you think about this?
>
> diff --git a/t/t8010-bisect-algorithm.sh b/t/t8010-bisect-algorithm.sh
> index bda59da..ae50e7c 100755
> --- a/t/t8010-bisect-algorithm.sh
> +++ b/t/t8010-bisect-algorithm.sh
> @@ -8,6 +8,16 @@ exec </dev/null
>
> . ./test-lib.sh
>
> +test_compare_rev () {
> + arg="$(git rev-parse "$1")"
...hence I would suggest:
arg="$(git rev-parse --verify "$1")" || return
> + shift
> + for rev
> + do
> + test "$arg" = "$(git rev-parse "$rev")" && return 0
...and:
hash="$(git rev-parse --verify "$rev")" || return
test "$arg" = "$hash" && return 0
> + done
> + return 1
> +}
Otherwise I like test_compare_rev().
Thanks,
Christian.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-27 11:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-26 2:04 [PATCH 00/16] git bisect improvements Stephan Beyer
2016-02-26 2:04 ` [PATCH 01/16] bisect: write about `bisect next` in documentation Stephan Beyer
2016-02-26 8:02 ` Jacob Keller
2016-02-26 18:47 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-02-27 13:45 ` Stephan Beyer
2016-02-27 18:03 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-02-27 19:38 ` Stephan Beyer
2016-02-28 18:28 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-02-26 2:04 ` [PATCH 02/16] bisect: add test for the bisect algorithm Stephan Beyer
2016-02-26 6:53 ` Christian Couder
2016-02-26 21:38 ` Stephan Beyer
2016-02-27 11:40 ` Christian Couder [this message]
2016-02-27 12:42 ` Matthieu Moy
2016-02-26 2:04 ` [PATCH 03/16] bisect: make bisect compile if DEBUG_BISECT is set Stephan Beyer
2016-02-26 2:04 ` [PATCH 04/16] bisect: make algorithm behavior independent of DEBUG_BISECT Stephan Beyer
2016-02-26 2:04 ` [PATCH 05/16] bisect: get rid of recursion in count_distance() Stephan Beyer
2016-02-26 2:04 ` [PATCH 06/16] bisect: use struct node_data array instead of int array Stephan Beyer
2016-02-26 2:04 ` [PATCH 07/16] bisect: replace clear_distance() by unique markers Stephan Beyer
2016-02-26 2:04 ` [PATCH 08/16] bisect: use commit instead of commit list as arguments when appropriate Stephan Beyer
2016-02-26 3:10 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-02-26 2:04 ` [PATCH 09/16] bisect: extract get_distance() function from code duplication Stephan Beyer
2016-02-26 2:04 ` [PATCH 10/16] bisect: introduce distance_direction() Stephan Beyer
2016-02-26 2:04 ` [PATCH 11/16] bisect: make total number of commits global Stephan Beyer
2016-02-26 2:04 ` [PATCH 12/16] bisect: rename count_distance() to compute_weight() Stephan Beyer
2016-02-26 2:04 ` [PATCH 13/16] bisect: prepare for different algorithms based on find_all Stephan Beyer
2016-02-26 2:04 ` [PATCH 14/16] bisect: use a modified breadth-first search to find relevant weights Stephan Beyer
2016-02-26 3:09 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-02-26 20:55 ` Stephan Beyer
2016-02-26 2:04 ` [PATCH 15/16] bisect: compute best bisection in compute_relevant_weights() Stephan Beyer
2016-02-26 2:04 ` [PATCH 16/16] bisect: get back halfway shortcut Stephan Beyer
2016-03-20 18:50 ` [PATCH 00/16] git bisect improvements Pranit Bauva
2016-03-21 22:22 ` Stephan Beyer
2016-03-22 7:35 ` Christian Couder
2016-03-22 11:35 ` Pranit Bauva
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=CAP8UFD27f3zmrLrvyCuMfs6ijt7MtLB8rX0Ykvfar3kidpm6LQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=christian.couder@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=s-beyer@gmx.net \
/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).