On 9 June 2018 at 00:41, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The "log" family of commands does its own parsing for --abbrev in > revision.c, so having dedicated tests for it makes sense. > +for i in $(test_seq 4 40) I've just been skimming so might have missed something, but I see several instances of this construct, and I wonder what this brute-force approach really buys us. An alternative would be, e.g., "for i in 4 23 40". That is, min/max and some arbitrary number in between (odd because the others are even). Of course, we might have a bug which magically happens for the number 9, but I'd expect us to test for that only if we have some reason to believe that number 9 is indeed magical. Also, 40 is of course tied to SHA-1. You could perhaps define a variable at the top of this file to simplify a future generalization. (Same for 39/41 which are related to 40.) Martin
