Re: [PATCH] tests: prefer host Git to verify chainlint self-checks

[Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>]

On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 3:13 AM Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 10:33:00PM -0500, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 10:11 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > Mostly because your "differences in features supported by just-built
> > > one and what happens to be on $PATH can cause problems" cuts both
> > > ways [...]
> >
> > I sent an alternative solution[1] which should sidestep this objection.
>
> Thanks, I've replied to the thread. I think by now there are three
> different ideas:
>
>   - Improve the logic to pick some kind of diff implementation, which is
>     my patch series. It would need to be improved so that we also probe
>     whether the respective Git executables actually understand the repo
>     format so that we can fall back from the just-built Git to system's
>     Git.
>
>   - Munge the whitespace of the expected results with some regexes.
>     I like that idea better because we can avoid the git-diff(1)
>     problem, but find that the result is somewhat hard to read.
>
>   - Fix the ".expect" files so that we can avoid all of these games.
>
> I actually like the last option most. I'll have a go at it and send this
> third version out in a bit.

I sent a reply[1] in the other thread explaining why I'm still leaning
toward `sed` to smooth over these minor differences rather than
churning the "expect" files, especially since the minor differences
are not significant to what is actually being tested. That said, I
won't stand in the way of such a patch to "fix" the "expect" files,
but it feels unnecessary.

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAPig+cSkuRfkR2D3JqYcbaJqj485nfD9Nq6pM=vXWB5DJenWpA@mail.gmail.com/