Am 7/25/2013 10:03, schrieb Eric Sunshine: > The tests in this series identify real bugs in dealing with empty > ranges, which the subsequent patches fix. The test are possible > because one can specify an empty range via blame/log -L, however, I > now realize that the ability for -L to create empty ranges was never > intended or part of the design, but is in fact itself a bug. ... > * Should we drop these new t4211 tests which guard against real potential > bugs? > > * Should we add custom C code to the test suite to make the > empty-range testing possible? > > * Should we introduce another (undocumented) loophole just for the > sake of the tests?
IIUC, the tests you added are protecting the *implementation* of range-set functions. For tests of the implementation, we usually write test-foo programs that call the functions directly. Tests invoking git should test the observable behavior. Therefore, if calling a git utility with "-Lfoo,+0" should be an error, then the test suite should mark such a call with test_must_fail. I guess this rules out the loophole approach. -- Hannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html