Re: [PATCH 2/4] t7610: make tests more independent and debuggable

[Richard Hansen]

On 2017-01-04 15:27, Stefan Beller wrote:

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Richard Hansen  wrote:

If a test fails it might leave the repository in a strange state.  Add
'git reset --hard' at the beginning of each test to increase the odds
of passing when an earlier test fails.


So each test is cleaning up the previous test, which *may* confuse
a reader ("how is the reset --hard relevant for this test? Oooh it's
just a cleanup").

We could put it another way by having each test itself make clean
up after itself via

  test_when_finished "git reset --hard" &&
  ..

at the beginning of each test.
This would produce the same order of operations, i.e. a
reset run between each test, but semantically tells the reader
that the reset is part of the current test cleaning up after itself,
as "reset" is operation for this particular test to cleanup.
Does that make sense?


I like that idea; thanks for the suggestion.  I'll cook up a reroll.



Also use test-specific branches to avoid interfering with later tests
and to make the tests easier to debug.


That sounds great!
Though in the code I only spot one occurrence for

+   git checkout -b test$test_count branch1 &&

so maybe that could be part of the first patch in the series?


There are two; the other is buried in the change for the 'mergetool on 
file in parent dir' test.


Thanks for the review,
Richard




Thanks,
Stefan

Re: [PATCH 2/4] t7610: make tests more independent and debuggable

[Richard Hansen]

On 2017-01-05 07:20, Simon Ruderich wrote:

On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 07:50:40PM -0500, Richard Hansen wrote:

[snip]
@@ -145,8 +148,13 @@ test_expect_success 'mergetool in subdir' '
 '

 test_expect_success 'mergetool on file in parent dir' '
+   git reset --hard &&
+   git checkout -b test$test_count branch1 &&
+   git submodule update -N &&
(
cd subdir &&
+   test_must_fail git merge master >/dev/null 2>&1 &&
+   ( yes "" | git mergetool file3 >/dev/null 2>&1 ) &&


This change seems unrelated to the changes mentioned in the
commit message. Was it intended?


Yes, that is intentional; without this change, the test depends on the 
successful completion of the previous test.  I'll improve the commit 
message.


Thanks,
Richard



Regards
Simon


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: [PATCH 2/4] t7610: make tests more independent and debuggable

[Richard Hansen]

On 2017-01-04 15:27, Stefan Beller wrote:

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Richard Hansen  wrote:

If a test fails it might leave the repository in a strange state.  Add
'git reset --hard' at the beginning of each test to increase the odds
of passing when an earlier test fails.


So each test is cleaning up the previous test, which *may* confuse
a reader ("how is the reset --hard relevant for this test? Oooh it's
just a cleanup").

We could put it another way by having each test itself make clean
up after itself via

  test_when_finished "git reset --hard" &&
  ..

at the beginning of each test.
This would produce the same order of operations, i.e. a
reset run between each test, but semantically tells the reader
that the reset is part of the current test cleaning up after itself,
as "reset" is operation for this particular test to cleanup.
Does that make sense?


I like that idea; thanks for the suggestion.  I'll cook up a reroll.



Also use test-specific branches to avoid interfering with later tests
and to make the tests easier to debug.


That sounds great!
Though in the code I only spot one occurrence for

+   git checkout -b test$test_count branch1 &&

so maybe that could be part of the first patch in the series?


There are two; the other is buried in the change for the 'mergetool on 
file in parent dir' test.  I'll improve the commit message to make it 
more clear.


Thanks for the review,
Richard




Thanks,
Stefan


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: [PATCH 2/4] t7610: make tests more independent and debuggable

[Simon Ruderich]

On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 07:50:40PM -0500, Richard Hansen wrote:
> [snip]
> @@ -145,8 +148,13 @@ test_expect_success 'mergetool in subdir' '
>  '
>
>  test_expect_success 'mergetool on file in parent dir' '
> + git reset --hard &&
> + git checkout -b test$test_count branch1 &&
> + git submodule update -N &&
>   (
>   cd subdir &&
> + test_must_fail git merge master >/dev/null 2>&1 &&
> + ( yes "" | git mergetool file3 >/dev/null 2>&1 ) &&

This change seems unrelated to the changes mentioned in the
commit message. Was it intended?

Regards
Simon
-- 
+ privacy is necessary
+ using gnupg http://gnupg.org
+ public key id: 0x92FEFDB7E44C32F9


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [PATCH 2/4] t7610: make tests more independent and debuggable

[Stefan Beller]

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Richard Hansen  wrote:
> If a test fails it might leave the repository in a strange state.  Add
> 'git reset --hard' at the beginning of each test to increase the odds
> of passing when an earlier test fails.

So each test is cleaning up the previous test, which *may* confuse
a reader ("how is the reset --hard relevant for this test? Oooh it's
just a cleanup").

We could put it another way by having each test itself make clean
up after itself via

  test_when_finished "git reset --hard" &&
  ..

at the beginning of each test.
This would produce the same order of operations, i.e. a
reset run between each test, but semantically tells the reader
that the reset is part of the current test cleaning up after itself,
as "reset" is operation for this particular test to cleanup.
Does that make sense?


>
> Also use test-specific branches to avoid interfering with later tests
> and to make the tests easier to debug.

That sounds great!
Though in the code I only spot one occurrence for

+   git checkout -b test$test_count branch1 &&

so maybe that could be part of the first patch in the series?

Thanks,
Stefan