Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > "Alexandr Miloslavskiy via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> > writes: > ... >> 3) Tests are indirect > > That cuts both ways. For a developer who is too narrowly focused > (because s/he spent enough time staring at the code), testing the > underlying machinery in a more direct way does feel attractive, but > at the same time, what matters to the end users is how well the > feature, when integrated into the commands they use (not the test > scaffolding like the "test-parse-pathspec-file" command), works. > > So "indirect" is not necessarily a bad thing. Just to avoid misunderstanding, I am not opposed to adding tests and test helpers that allows direct access to the guts of the machinery to check the behaviour of the lower level codepath. I am merely saying that such tests would not make it unnecessary to have end-to-end tests that validates end-user visible effects. Thanks.
