Hi Peff, On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, Jeff King wrote: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 05:18:50PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > In https://public-inbox.org/git/7vvc8alzat.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > a reasonable patch was made quite a bit less so by changing a test case > > demonstrating a bug to a test case that demonstrates that we ask for too > > much: the test case 'unsetting the last key in a section removes header' > > now expects a future bug fix to be able to determine whether a free-form > > comment above a section header refers to said section or not. > > > > Rather than shooting for the stars (and not even getting off the > > ground), let's start shooting for something obtainable and be reasonably > > confident that we *can* get it. > > As I said before, I'm fine with turning this test into something more > realistic. Good. Of course, I worked hard to come up with a patch series, i.e. I put in some effort to placate anybody who would be offended by my accompanying rant. > An obvious question is whether we should preserve the original > unrealistic parts by splitting it: the realistic parts into one > expect_failure (that we'd switch to expect_success by the end of this > series), and then an unrealistic one to serve as a documentation of the > ideal, with a comment explaining why it's unrealistic. As stated before, I think it would be a mistake to mark up this unrealistic example with `test_expect_failure`. We do, after all, suggest occasionally to grep for that when somebody asks what they could work on. And you do not want to set somebody like that up for failure by pointing them to such a "bug". However, I did keep the example to demonstrate the expectation that sections with surrounding comments are kept. That was very much intended. And the reason I did not change the unrealistic example? So that it is easier to review in our patch-based review process, where I try to avoid hunks that might distract from the intent of the change. Ciao, Dscho
