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
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to