On 08.01.2020 18:26, Junio C Hamano wrote:
I will implement the next --pathspec-from-file patches as if this
third patch was accepted (that is, without copy&pasted tests).
I am not sure if that is a good idea. I'd rather see the planned
new changes not to be taken hostage of the third step.
In my understanding, the new patches will not be taken hostage, they
will simply adopt the new approach. Everything will work just fine
whether or not third step is present.
Besides, with the third step, your preference is not to test the
behaviour of end-user facing commands that would learn the option at
all and only test the underlying machinery with test-tool tests, no?
That's not exactly correct. Third step removes duplicate tests that give
no real benefit. With test-tool tests in place and succceeding, these
duplicate tests are super unlikely to fail.
I will still provide a few tests for every new command to make sure that
said command works as intended. I will only skip indirectly testing
global API again and again.
If you are not adding tests for the higher-level end-user facing
commands as part of these new series, would it make a difference if
the codebase has the third step applied (i.e. missing tests for the
end-user facing commands that have already learned the option) or
not (i.e. the commands that have already learned the option are
still tested end-to-end)?
I will be adding good tests and skip useless tests. For new commands, it
doesn't really matter if "third step" patch is applied or not.
