Thomas Rast <trast@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> More generally, scripts in t/ directories are "scripts", but it is totally
>> different from the kind of "user facing script that behaves as if it is a
>> complete command, taking its own command line arguments, passing them
>> through to the underlying plumbing commands".
>
> I don't understand what distinction you are trying to make here. Maybe
> my mental model of the plumbing/porcelain separation (which is mostly
> about interface stability) is wrong?
What's so hard to understand that these tests are very different from
end-user scripts?
We could have shipped you a written instruction to type these commands
from your shell and made you responsible for running them every time we
release a new version. That would have been more true to the intent of
these test scripts. The test being implemented as scripts is merely a
substitute for hiring one Thomas Rast as a test engineer to type them from
the terminal ;-).
User-facing scripts (Porcelain enhancements) people write are in a totally
different boat. They take input and have code to make their own decision
what kind of arguments and inputs to feed to their underlying building
blocks. They may even parse output from the commands they invoke to base
their decision that affects what happens next. Our tests start from a
known state (i.e. empty trash directory), take input from neither command
line, human interaction nor the filesystem content of the day, that affect
the input to the commands they drive.
To put it another way, if you have a cron job that does
cd $HOME/diary && git add MyDiary.txt
that is perfectly fine. You are letting the machine do the typing for you
every hour, instead of having you type these yourself. It is even OK if
the filename was derived from `date` or something, i.e.
N=$(date +'%Y-%m-%d').txt &&
if test -f "$N"
then
git add "$N"
fi
What is not OK is to attempt parsing from Porcelain output to decide what
to do next. "git branch | sed -ne 's/^\* //p'" is a typical example.
Our tests are different for another important reason you seem to be
missing. The tests we ship are tied very closely with the version of Git
they are testing. Even parsing the command output is acceptable for our
tests for this reason (obviously that is the only way to make sure that we
are issuing an appropriate error, warning, or advice message to the end
user). End-user scripts do not have that property.
And the biggest thing you should consider is that 99% of users are too
busy to bother thinking for themselves and instead prefer to be handed
down a concise recipe to follow blindly. You could include "in this, that,
and that other situation, it is OK to use Porcelain command" to the
recipe, but doing so defeats the whole purpose of having a recipe to begin
with, by making the readers responsible for thinking for themselves again.
That is why we just give a concise "Do not use Porcelain commands in your
scripts as their behaviour is subject to change."
--
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