Hi Dscho,
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:10 PM, Johannes Schindelin
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2018, Christian Couder wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 7:33 PM, Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > I hate to say this, but the above looks like a typical
>> > unmaintainable mess.
>> >
>> > What happens when you or somebody else later needs to update the
>> > graph to be tested to add one more commit (or even more)? Would it
>> > be enough to add another "rev-parse" plus "dist=X" line in both
>> > expects? Or do we see a trap for combinatorial explosion that
>> > requires us to add new expect$N?
>>
>> What about the following then:
>>
>> test_dist_order () {
>> file="$1"
>> n="$2"
>> while read -r hash dist
>> do
>> d=$(echo "$dist" | sed -e "s/(dist=\(.*\))/\1/")
>> case "$d" in
>> ''|*[!0-9]*) return 1 ;;
>> *) ;;
>> esac
>> test "$d" -le "$n" || return 1
>> n="$d"
>> done <"$file"
>> }
>>
>> test_expect_success "--bisect-all --first-parent" '
>> cat >expect <<EOF &&
>> $(git rev-parse CC) (dist=2)
>> $(git rev-parse EX) (dist=1)
>> $(git rev-parse D) (dist=1)
>> $(git rev-parse FX) (dist=0)
>> EOF
>> sort expect >expect_sorted &&
>> git rev-list --bisect-all --first-parent FX ^A >actual &&
>> sort actual >actual_sorted &&
>> test_cmp expect_sorted actual_sorted &&
>> test_dist_order actual 2
>> '
>>
>> This feels overkill to me, but it should scale if we ever make more
>> complex tests.
>
> I *think* that you misunderstand Junio. At least when I read this:
>
>> $(git rev-parse CC) (dist=2)
>> $(git rev-parse EX) (dist=1)
>> $(git rev-parse D) (dist=1)
>> $(git rev-parse FX) (dist=0)
>
> I go: Huh?!?!?!?!?!
>
> What's CC? Is it Christian Couder? Creative Commons? Crudely Complex?
I agree that the name of the commit could be improved.
> The point, for me, is: if this test fails, at some stage in the future,
> for any reason, it will be a major pain to even dissect what the test is
> supposed to do.
I think the test is quite simple and there is an ascii picture, so it
is not so difficult to understand.
> This is no good. And you can do better. A lot better. You
> can write the test in a way that the head of a reader does not hurt, and
> at the same time it is still obvious what it does, and obvious that it
> does the right thing.
Obviousness is often not the same for everybody.
> One thing that makes the brain stumble for certain is when you deviate
> from the conventions, especially when it is for no good reason at all. In
> this case (and I am not sure why you, as a long-time contributor, did not
> spot this before public review):
Please note that I never committed myself (like most of us who are not
maintainer actually) to reviewing everything bisect related (or
everything that Tiago works on).
> - the titles of the test cases leave a lot of room for improvement,
>
> - the lines are too long,
>
> - the convention to end the `test_expect_success` line with an opening
> single quote is not heeded,
If you take a look at the beginning of the script you will see that
there are those problems there too.
I know that we should try to do better, but here I am mostly
interested in moving forward a feature that people have requested for
ages, not cleaning up those tests. If someone else like you or Junio
thinks that it would be a good time to clean things up a bit, then I
am ok with it, but that's not my main goal here.
> - the graph is definitely written in an unnecessarily different format
> than in the same test script!!!
Just above you complain about things that are similar to the previous
tests and now you complain about things that are different...
> - speaking of the graph: there is a perfectly fine commit graph already.
> Why on earth is it not reused?
Perhaps because it is more complex than needed to test this feature
and/or to understand what happens. And I don't think we require
everywhere only one commit graph per test script.
> In this particular case it even feels as if this test is not even testing
> what it should test at all:
>
> - it should verify that all of the commits in the first parent lineage are
> part of the list
It does that.
> - it should verify that none of the other commits are in the list
It does that too.
> And that is really all there is to test.
I don't agree. I think that when possible, especially when testing
plumbing commands like rev-list, it is a good thing to test as many
things as possible at once.
> You can even write that in a much
> easier way:
>
> -- snip --
> test_expect_success '--first-parent --bisect-all lists correct revs' '
> git rev-list --first-parent --bisect-all F..E >revs &&
> # E and e1..e8 need to be shown, F and f1..f4 not
> test_line_count = 9 revs &&
> for rev in E e1 e2 e3 e4 e5 e6 e7 e8
> do
> grep "^$(git rev-parse $rev) " revs || {
> echo "$rev not shown" >&2 &&
> return 1
> }
> done
> '
> -- snap --
>
> To test more precisely for the order or the distance would be both
> overkill and likely to be unreadable.
I don't think the previous version was either overkill or unreadable.
Yeah it had other (potential in my opinion) problems, but I was trying
with my suggestion to find a good balance between the different
requirements (readability, complexity, maintainability, testing many
things).
By the way with only the 2 requirements you list above, I think the
simplest would be sorting things like I do it in my suggestion without
checking that the (dist=X) are in the right order with just:
test_expect_success "--bisect-all --first-parent" '
cat >expect <<EOF &&
$(git rev-parse CC) (dist=2)
$(git rev-parse EX) (dist=1)
$(git rev-parse D) (dist=1)
$(git rev-parse FX) (dist=0)
EOF
sort expect >expect_sorted &&
git rev-list --bisect-all --first-parent FX ^A >actual &&
sort actual >actual_sorted &&
test_cmp expect_sorted actual_sorted
'
> To test `--bisect-vars` here would be excessive, as the part that handles
> that particular option is not even touched. All that is touched is the
> logic in the bisect algorithm in conjunction with --first-parent. And that
> is all that should be tested here.
I don't agree with that. I think that as we now enable --first-parent
with all the --bisect* options, we should test at least once all the
--bisect* options with --first-parent.
> With a test like the one I outlined above, I only have one more gripe
> about the patch: the commit message does nothing to explain this part of
> the diff:
>
> + if ((bisect_flags & BISECT_FIRST_PARENT)) {
> + if (weight(q) < 0)
> + q = NULL;
> + break;
> + }
>
> And I would really, really like that to be explained in the commit
> message. Because to me, it is completely opaque why this needs to be here.
This was suggested by Junio in a previous iteration and I agree that a
comment would be welcome.
> The rest of the diff is pretty obvious, though.
Thanks for taking a look anyway,
Christian.
