From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A554208BB for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:38:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.123.19 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1705577905; cv=none; b=PJwqxmtDHQObwyrvOHFgKw/stPj7wQBGomD2vggXQxBZbQyfRvy/xD4NOP+QzwT+T8ZNfipztBP42awzKDdu4J6VXbi1k/TXWw4fn7ZYppeTowcWK7XGK4q7TYI2Dq+RojxOUnGg3cYvSPqHWHT4dijG1qYX4EDejG3FuMX+UWU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1705577905; c=relaxed/simple; bh=xay0rklrOIMTdlmHWg3NC7cvcSUWnrbwonTX3cI9EhE=; h=Received:Received:DKIM-Signature:DKIM-Signature:X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received:X-ME-Proxy-Cause:X-ME-Proxy:Feedback-ID:Received: Received:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=RQRJAWb9noaaqRSlvZIbAQ5l7GaS0IgcxZkjDiO0R6i2qTq49fZ3Z8MrWTu6VN1TDGwWDZsf+qSXRekq94SveCJwXChhYTeirkr+3qBV1Avkec5QPSkaWmsX/Yq+GG86q2YOseXDEym21S6POOwhdT5HDjJP3boHuTArPaRFUcA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=pks.im; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pks.im; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pks.im header.i=@pks.im header.b=ObnCcyf3; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=UI8RyMGd; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.123.19 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=pks.im Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pks.im Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pks.im header.i=@pks.im header.b="ObnCcyf3"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="UI8RyMGd" Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B1B33200BFC; Thu, 18 Jan 2024 06:38:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 18 Jan 2024 06:38:23 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pks.im; h=cc:cc :content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1705577902; x=1705664302; bh=ZfPEcw+S4z F2VyNmTXlLTKW59+YPAMPlu2u4TyxG76g=; b=ObnCcyf3w2xDeUUB2tSmQCA4qR gYLtWznibX3s8gI+IfEOiDlo7zu3sfM+lfouSS3lXCdr0/rft8fvzrgPJq+Z3F8z JyUDfcu57KBUiD8TnHeHqXSqYUoBOJz5ao2TJToNl8Villn/jvXYz/Z8AXZQedyV Hozxbn00NIW93yvnIX6NApSV8Q0YGStEpPx64xbaS4KQ4MtU+fv0El0irioRCUgF j8YliCKlan5qr0h+7I9KW7wyyT93qkW28MeNNDpaYzQffFsPbJK6x0vNCKXd9vsK Kt1uWc7CfTwvqZEQ1+CdKVTW56O7cdXgMS7HEyQ9ZXmXPdg12n6Ih5MsD4MQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm3; t=1705577902; x=1705664302; bh=ZfPEcw+S4zF2VyNmTXlLTKW59+YP AMPlu2u4TyxG76g=; b=UI8RyMGd7QVezrCn7jWr5zf67t5fYLoIGOtqZmtE9WYZ q3VbQ3vOzWnnuwlSqXRms50F+SY5547kWTaOtmhqmeji7oNPzVHnm8xA5G6XudAj /biNouf4SL8kUC7yf8O+abc5qtTfL2QofTnEk2dtqmx0Dg+VbqzSZHjYxaPC8kiD 9DmSQyXfNad3+x8lxC0yjkBMlnSHgOIESM5Sbkhvd/ADM5e/V7l+XOX4yNPJ47B5 c+CaSix1clAaFAU+h80Oka541E3S8Dhtb9C2jtU+8F+ajsDgtEe8uyDVlETXVtZD rqtt6oWyJDV5e/Q0lWtUnM07Vk10j6Cv1QQmmLNykw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvkedrvdejkedgtdeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepfffhvfevuffkfhggtggujgesghdtreertddtvdenucfhrhhomheprfgrthhr ihgtkhcuufhtvghinhhhrghrughtuceophhssehpkhhsrdhimheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvg hrnhepueektdevtdffveeljeetgfehheeigeekleduvdeffeeghefgledttdehjeelffet necuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepphhsse hpkhhsrdhimh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i197146af:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 18 Jan 2024 06:38:21 -0500 (EST) Received: by vm-mail (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 6dd4efbb (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256:NO); Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:35:25 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2024 12:38:18 +0100 From: Patrick Steinhardt To: Junio C Hamano Cc: John Cai via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, John Cai Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] Group reffiles tests Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="j97HEkR1nx5Jfq5h" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: --j97HEkR1nx5Jfq5h Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 05:17:17PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "John Cai via GitGitGadget" writes: >=20 > > This series groups REFFILES specific tests together. These tests are > > currently grouped together across the test suite based on functionality. > > However, since they exercise low-level behavior specific to the refs ba= ckend > > being used (in these cases, the ref-files backend), group them together > > based on which refs backend they test. This way, in the near future whe= n the > > reftables backend gets upstreamed we can add tests that exercise the > > reftables backend close by in the t06xx area. > > > > These patches also remove the REFFILES prerequisite, since all the test= s in > > t06xx are reffiles specific. >=20 > As we already have REFFILES lazy prereq, even _before_ we enable the > reftable backend, I think that we should start t0600 and t0602 with >=20 > . ./test-lib.sh > if ! test_have_prereq REFFILES > then > skip_all=3D'skipping reffiles specific tests' > test_done > fi >=20 > which is more in line with the existing convention. It is more > efficient than "forcing t0600 and t0602 to run always with reffiles" > when you have a CI job that uses reftable for all tests and another > CI job that uses reffiles for all tests. I think it depends. If we use the REFFILES prereq for the files-specific tests, then we should likely also use the REFTABLE prereq for the reftable-specific tests. But that raises the question of whether we want to add a CI job that exercises code with the reftable backend for every major platform (Linux, macOS, Windows). If so then your proposal would be fine with me as we make sure that things work alright on all of them. But if we think that this would be too expensive then I'd like to at least have very basic test coverage on all platforms by always running these backend-specific tests. Patrick --j97HEkR1nx5Jfq5h Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEF9hrgiFbCdvenl/rVbJhu7ckPpQFAmWpDakACgkQVbJhu7ck PpR+6g//b+IdAeLxRXj0QOTOMuLGZGwDakXjvVKH4VKmJZ9kiXNUCwPMImIbpKwL TcRZhUd9eeorNux8e7br37o4ZTbk2WVl3Igaa0COv5IKNU9jHxsgsGw6vV5lYBPS ePEjnPVkXZQ5bp/yezS8iDpQlWm4L/kQ2qb/+6IpOIeEXJiPTfjtzHnk/PduOyPU D1/pYlF2kY4lHTxXaNLvZqw/dJP5GQhU0jEYp6zn8DfSn2hkE1dMnpNoJoHf2Zuf nUr7FqUQFaIwYxTkmD09Axb1jbwKKy/UoHyZG7DdJ6qSL3nacBA8EIIzGDyjA9kz DMuxX3vGhn5FoxpxQDyOGhpIGUmuBXG79IaOWcqf9NSMksLM3cXLCHietiHmrEgG hP/7y43Mo47qha4NzbSGUmpisPOkN39ZSeUjQ5KblI14wIX9vue+DggvvUxNxSdr 5a0WbhQr6RrK4+hxYQYz4gC4zYsK80mzVTAGT3Xr6tn0oBt/8zDUHIBHr0OAaoYL yC7fPEZ85xs8bj0BBkEkBaPsDNXfanyUMDcDyZs11Y/XmClZF/XJBPwPp+diRG39 5ykSzJ7XkSO5gxGCMVg3y2gNDvHSstkD0Q1ECcFfax04nCR++Xzr9c+KFIya28FU rGW8tg1sFjkLxW8V/2Yi7rzV6+ikppdOq+TScul28tbSzsBfySY= =khZB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --j97HEkR1nx5Jfq5h--