Adam Simpkins <simpkins@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > These tests help make sure graph_is_interesting() is doing the right > thing. > > Signed-off-by: Adam Simpkins <simpkins@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > t/t6016-rev-list-graph-simplify-history.sh | 276 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 files changed, 276 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > create mode 100755 t/t6016-rev-list-graph-simplify-history.sh > > diff --git a/t/t6016-rev-list-graph-simplify-history.sh b/t/t6016-rev-list-graph-simplify-history.sh > new file mode 100755 > index 0000000..5ac8fc9 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/t/t6016-rev-list-graph-simplify-history.sh > @@ -0,0 +1,276 @@ > +#!/bin/sh > + > +# There's more than one "correct" way to represent the history graphically. > +# These tests depend on the current behavior of the graphing code. If the > +# graphing code is ever changed to draw the output differently, these tests > +# cases will need to be updated to know about the new layout. An ideal solution to such a problem would be not to write the tests that way to require _the exact layout_ of the output. What was the bug you were trying to fix? Was it that in a simplified history some arcs are not connected whey they should be? Can you test that without relying on other aspect (say, commits are marked with '*' right now but a patch might change it to '^' for some commits) of the output? I am just wondering how feasible it is the problem you are trying to solve, not demanding you to solve it. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html