From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (pb-smtp1.pobox.com [64.147.108.70]) (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 C7C351386AE for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 19:52:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.70 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1705434777; cv=none; b=PNmnfSwz/cJcYb/umZyEgYwCr4j0P7em5jOpabesbTNkIH3z/0niXCdMSg1Nq6YnZ/BpJFjrriiuIdIAp1nLigQ5kHTriLkzBGE0KaCawtcrfwJrjVXo/tUdBDa1c9StZT6kReUe8kTZPLEs4gPYtUUXDNiGloXoErljWV7DXw4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1705434777; c=relaxed/simple; bh=MnuV9284ACKW/8ye8Trk55T6OdgJJ4H5fm54tqUakjo=; h=Received:DKIM-Signature:Received:Received:From:To:Cc:Subject: In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID:User-Agent:MIME-Version: Content-Type:X-Pobox-Relay-ID:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=Y6jHTqEoEADVi5yYZ6V8hy4CXEX/WDD0mpU1hIgddW61QJ/Z/bzeNUMSQ4YTbJQ2n9BlNzTk0T2ItXA4qZvgzW9ORMn+AlYO4HXW1epmhSVDwHNUUCL8TYeSWrLCJ/3Gn1Vi3npSRzu5ZujXKpS19eVb76Ig50uYdm3D3UhL/wc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=fbLOg+vT; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.70 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="fbLOg+vT" Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47F1D1E708F; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 14:52:54 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=MnuV9284ACKW /8ye8Trk55T6OdgJJ4H5fm54tqUakjo=; b=fbLOg+vTN8901jwEK8yPIIoGVr2H dX2Sl9DR85J2yG7Ffik2k+AvrRBQUuiJizbE6hgb3pwabC53rzj4pYzJA1dh1XUD 1UeZatO7PC/JtmlMk5X29wOKtA5s3hNYmcfH2ytw4FKJwknn79daHkLEC0ep0k76 r85D0AsOT13mQT8= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BC021E708E; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 14:52:54 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.200.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9C44D1E708B; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 14:52:53 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: =?utf-8?Q?Ren=C3=A9?= Scharfe Cc: Phillip Wood , Achu Luma , git@vger.kernel.org, chriscool@tuxfamily.org, christian.couder@gmail.com, me@ttaylorr.com, phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk, steadmon@google.com Subject: Re: [Outreachy][PATCH v5] Port helper/test-ctype.c to unit-tests/t-ctype.c In-Reply-To: <41cf1944-2456-4115-a934-aff2306a26e5@web.de> (=?utf-8?Q?=22R?= =?utf-8?Q?en=C3=A9?= Scharfe"'s message of "Tue, 16 Jan 2024 20:27:13 +0100") References: <20240105161413.10422-1-ach.lumap@gmail.com> <20240112102743.1440-1-ach.lumap@gmail.com> <0d18a95a-543a-41de-8441-c8894d46d380@gmail.com> <41cf1944-2456-4115-a934-aff2306a26e5@web.de> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2024 11:52:52 -0800 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: D638713C-B4A8-11EE-A1BB-78DCEB2EC81B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ren=C3=A9 Scharfe writes: > Am 16.01.24 um 16:38 schrieb Junio C Hamano: >> Phillip Wood writes: >> >>> Thanks for adding back the test for EOF, this version looks good to m= e. >> >> Thanks. Let's merge it to 'next'. > > OK. I'm still interested in replies to my question in > https://lore.kernel.org/git/a087f57c-ce72-45c7-8182-f38d0aca9030@web.de= /, > i.e. whether we should have one TEST per class or one per class and > character -- or in a broader sense: What's the ideal scope of a TEST? > But I can ask it again in the form of a follow-up patch. I personally do not have a good answer, but those who are interested in unit-tests more than I do should have their opinions to share ;-)