On Sat, Jun 09 2018, Martin Ågren wrote: > 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. Good point, I'll change this in v2, or at least guard it with EXPENSIVE. I hacked it up like this while exhaustively testing things during development, and discovered some edge cases (e.g. "0" is special sometimes). > 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.) I forgot to note this in the commit message, but I intentionally didn't guard this test with the SHA1 prereq, there's nothing per-se specific to SHA-1 here, it's not a given that whatever our NewHash is that we won't use 40 characters, and the rest of the magic constants like 4 and 7 is something we're likely to retain with NewHash. Although maybe we should expose GIT_SHA1_HEXSZ to the test suite.
