From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-a3-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-a3-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.154]) (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 1E72517332C for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2024 19:10:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.154 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728501043; cv=none; b=oPqgk9XX68/LDYnK/DN/HxN2p3AJIuxVGq43wnZOZauRHjTBHbUqDn3yZiD+2KQnO4wmukK0SHW/E7tgWZYkPFFHSJE/IQ2eLcSDFXp+YjpVzs2OVrtl2IfzZnea3AHbbk8H9Qba9tzktQ+Lro4efnSBL11cSPGC0bpREhn4eAs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728501043; c=relaxed/simple; bh=OAmuAnkCNPM/MszklnPsNBViAkha5QNkmrbVVN/GgBM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=fMcx3P5IUJIZhHF2P2VrdMw1CZHJRdJlPJG1fhvlH6+rRbtFeInyu56okhZcz07DQkYH+x0sNo+QfgIQ6yFxME57nPrqgiBdfuKcfygEt8GyL4hDXslkKkTj8/K88x9bcn3tvmOo53KjAeNYz78hIpOewIhMmYIl9R4+2wo1fII= 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 (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=AWho4vxw; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=cJrfjcpC; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.154 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 (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="AWho4vxw"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="cJrfjcpC" Received: from phl-compute-09.internal (phl-compute-09.phl.internal [10.202.2.49]) by mailfhigh.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DE2A11401FC; Wed, 9 Oct 2024 15:10:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-01 ([10.202.2.160]) by phl-compute-09.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 09 Oct 2024 15:10:40 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; 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=fm1; t=1728501040; x=1728587440; bh=E/0jHHt+AJ qJ+7SuDAvRb5H58G5HtqSVNDRS6quSNhA=; b=AWho4vxwYt01caTLbxmmiT5eD+ AIMYBBvgmm01gdWebPGQKOPblT7Q4OCgkH61UnNUEE4yxssNTN7ILnZQU9nIA9ml 0SBqqeIqLn3F6drtZELZ9Vas0aWSnQnuAzc9CVhPrIQjpREkE2l9V1LJuGI3is2T r95hhfizPm9+I4CnVoHplwC00wvB0AoiSYhvlawiDAf8Xr5cs4XB6zySXV/2DLD5 OzlUfJJ5aAU+fAiO9MK3aSz7AKVzR7+noho85PB5xdv253HfHNErv51jUVgE+yON B3hFqig6SFxGjfmP11/7IiZ3bzEEi3m+pUw09mlpfKvMU4iIPoixh7C7kvew== 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= fm2; t=1728501040; x=1728587440; bh=E/0jHHt+AJqJ+7SuDAvRb5H58G5H tqSVNDRS6quSNhA=; b=cJrfjcpCzUERso6Cn6yAIRA6hcg2xA3L7yJdsKq2BZ71 uee/NFb/qw2QvH+Ot6Ef1KrfE8zGfYJBA6q3EQLsPwY0s92/fuFA2fu8Nfo0osFZ cM/DpN2s27VNdbfQv3I2I7XiYBDhX80M5quK8fzqpI6yFiQK3oR/mxbfZs3EJ67R WmI1ogJpGlIXENbwQKmQD9WbE3of/DBk0Fot6MldKemio4DsQVPRYRKK4Bzbyet+ n101sNike/1TCA22V8x3GCPCEjawunW24Fg3ju/GaU1AkMpMgE9aBSbLYnBAgHkR 7dfGWXeDS2Ao1yk+4wQ7sEUtcpbV21gCh1KNMm1fNQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeftddrvdeffedgudefjecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpggftfghnshhusghstghrihgsvgdp uffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivg hnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpefhvfevufgjfhffkfgfgggtsehttdertddtredt necuhfhrohhmpefluhhnihhoucevucfjrghmrghnohcuoehgihhtshhtvghrsehpohgsoh igrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeefveetteejheeugeffledvteeiveffueef jeelueffteeigffgfedthfefieegieenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrh grmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehgihhtshhtvghrsehpohgsohigrdgtohhmpdhnsggprhgt phhtthhopeegpdhmohguvgepshhmthhpohhuthdprhgtphhtthhopegtugifhhhithgvfe esphhmrdhmvgdprhgtphhtthhopeguvghvnhhulhhlodgtugifhhhithgvfedrphhmrdhm vgeskhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithesvhhgvghrrdhkvghrnhgvlh drohhrghdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtshhtvghrsehpohgsohigrdgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 9 Oct 2024 15:10:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Caleb White Cc: Caleb White via B4 Relay , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] worktree: link worktrees with relative paths In-Reply-To: (Caleb White's message of "Wed, 09 Oct 2024 18:34:10 +0000") References: <20241007-wt_relative_paths-v3-0-622cf18c45eb@pm.me> <20241007-wt_relative_paths-v3-2-622cf18c45eb@pm.me> Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2024 12:10:38 -0700 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 Caleb White writes: > What's the best way to parameterize the worktree tests? I would like > to run the same tests for both absolute and relative paths and I'm > not particularly a fan of just copying them all into new *-relative.sh > files. What I meant by interoperability tests are a lot smaller scale. A test that creates worktree/repository pair without the option to use relative, and then tries to use such a worktree/repository pair with the option would simulate "how well the newer Git handles an existing repository", and another test that creates with the option to use relative and uses the worktree/repository without the option would simulate "how well existing versions of Git works when seeing a worktree made with the newer git with the relative option". By "parameterise", if you mean running a set of worktree/repository tests without the "relative" option enabled, and run the same set of tests with the option enabled, you could model it after how t8001 and t8002 (or t5560 and t5561) share a lot of same tests that are in a file that is included by both of them. In smaller scale, it is common to have an ad-hoc construct like: for conf in relative absolute do test_expect_success ... test_expect_success ... test_expect_success ... done that has bunch of test_expect_success, which may change the behaviour depending on the value of $conf, not &&-chained inside the for loop. You can use a nested loop (one for preparing, the other for testing the use of worktree) if you want to test the full matrix. I do not offhand know if such parametralized tests are necessary in the context of this change, though. Thanks.