Re: [GSOC][RFC PATCH 0/1] microproject: use test_path_is_* functions in test scripts

[Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>]

On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 12:22 PM Vincenzo Mezzela
<vincenzo.mezzela@gmail.com> wrote:
> Would you like to see something like
> '''
> test_path_is_missing file1 &&
> test_path_is_file file2 &&
> test_path_is_missing file3 &&
> test_path_is_file file5
> '''
> changed into
> '''
> test_path_is_file file2 &&
> test_path_is_file file5 &&
> test_path_is_missing file3 &&
> test_path_is_missing file1
> '''
> where all the test_path_is_file are grouped before and followed by all
> the test_path_is_missing (or the other way around) to enhance
> readability of the code?

Generally speaking, no, reviewers would not want to see such a change
because "enhanced readability" is often quite subjective. More
importantly, though, reviewers would especially not want this done in
the same patch which changes `test -blah` to `test_path_foo` because
it make it harder for the reviewer to associate and verify each `test
-blah` to `test_path_foo` replacement in the final result with the
source statement in the original file. It's much easier for a reviewer
to validate old against new when there is an obvious one-to-one
correspondence.