Hi Elijah, On Wed, 30 Oct 2019, Elijah Newren wrote: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 3:17 PM Johannes Schindelin > <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 30 Oct 2019, Elijah Newren wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 6:20 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > > > > > > > > >> Still, I rely pretty heavily on t6036, t6042, t6043, and t6046 for > > > > >> sanity in the face of refactoring and rewriting -- and as mentioned > > > > >> before they have caught refactoring bugs in those areas that appear at > > > > >> first blush as "overzealous", ... > > > > > > > > > > One idea would be to try to guard those extra careful tests behind the > > > > > `EXPENSIVE` prereq. > > > > > > > > Yeah, I like that---I think it is perfectly in line with the spirit > > > > of EXPENSIVE, too. > > > > > > Or perhaps EXPENSIVE_ON_WINDOWS, since it's actually pretty cheap on > > > linux and not that bad on Mac > > > > Why the complexity? If you separate out the expensive tests (even if > > they are only expensive in terms of run time on Windows), it will make > > the regression tests so much more readable to the occasional reader > > (making them less expensive in terms of reading time...). > > The "extra careful" things you were complaining about with the new > test I was adding to t6043 was true of every single test in that > file...and likely much of t6036, t6042, and perhaps even t6046 (though > those have fewer tests than t6043). I have no clue where I'd even > begin to draw the line between them. If it's possible, it sounds > extremely complex. Just using the EXPENSIVE_ON_WINDOWS prereq that > already exists would be easy and simple. > > Or did you mean you wanted me to duplicate every single test and > attempt to trim down the duplicates somehow? That'd be a rather large > undertaking that sounds rather unappealing on a few fronts, but maybe > that's what you had in mind? My suggestion was in reply to your question, and not intended for already-existing tests. That would indeed require a lot of work, and I am not sure that it would be worth it. The suggestion was intended for future patches. Ciao, Dscho
