From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Ghanshyam Thakkar <shyamthakkar001@gmail.com>
Cc: Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>,
git@vger.kernel.org, Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>,
Kaartic Sivaraam <kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GSoC][PATCH] t/: migrate helper/test-example-decorate to the unit testing framework
Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 08:54:51 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqjzjbqoqc.fsf@gitster.g> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <tubjmjeczh6iigem32ulffvt2ucpygbm4frsr3jsps5tv2i7v5@ly3wge23zn6f> (Ghanshyam Thakkar's message of "Thu, 30 May 2024 14:09:09 +0530")
Ghanshyam Thakkar <shyamthakkar001@gmail.com> writes:
> The latter provides much more context (we almost don't have to open
> t-example-decorate.c file itself in some cases to know what failed)
> than the former. Now, of course we can add more test_msg()s to the
> former to improve, but I feel that this approach of splitting them
> provides and improves the information provided on stdout _without_
> adding any of my own test_msg()s. And I think that this is a good
> middleground between cluttering the stdout vs providing very little
> context while also remaining a faithful copy of the original.
If so, why stop at having four, each of which has more than one step
that could further be split? What's the downside?
Note: Here in this review, I am not necessarily suggesting the
tests in this patch to be further split into greater number of
smaller helper functions. I am primarily interested in finding
out what the unit test framework can further do to help unit
tests written using it (i.e., like this patch). If using
finer-grained tests gives you better diagnosis, but if it is too
cumbersome to separate the tests out further, is it because the
framework is inadequate in some way? How can we improve it?
Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-05-30 15:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-05-28 12:58 [GSoC][PATCH] t/: migrate helper/test-example-decorate to the unit testing framework Ghanshyam Thakkar
2024-05-29 21:41 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-05-30 6:55 ` Christian Couder
2024-05-30 8:39 ` Ghanshyam Thakkar
2024-05-30 15:54 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2024-06-03 17:51 ` Ghanshyam Thakkar
2024-06-03 18:53 ` Josh Steadmon
2024-06-03 21:09 ` Ghanshyam Thakkar
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=xmqqjzjbqoqc.fsf@gitster.g \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=chriscool@tuxfamily.org \
--cc=christian.couder@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com \
--cc=shyamthakkar001@gmail.com \
/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).