Hi Johannes,
> > Exercise the new -I<regex> diff option in various scenarios to ensure it
> > behaves as expected.
>
> Excellent. I was actually looking for a test in patch 2/3 and almost
> commented about that.
Right, I expressed my doubts in this area at the end of the cover letter
for v1:
>> - Should tests be added in a separate commit? This is what I did as I
>> thought it would help with readability, but...
I will be glad to follow any guidance provided, I just picked one of the
two possible routes for v1.
> Hmm. I wonder whether we could do with a much more concise test script.
> The test suite already takes a quite long time to run, which is not a
> laughing matter: we had issues in the past where contributors would skip
> running it because it took too long, and this test is sure to exacerbate
> that problem.
First, let me say that the goal of minimizing the run time of a test
suite is close to my heart (it is an issue at my day job). Yet, I
assumed that this new test would not be detrimental to test suite run
times as it takes about half a second to run t4069-diff-ignore-regex.sh
on my machine - and (I hope) its contents are in line with the "tests
are the best documentation" proverb. That being said, I realize that
the hosts used in various test environments may have different
processing capabilities. I tried preparing something exhaustive and
well-commented, so that it is clear what to expect from the new feature.
Yet, if you would rather have me cut some things out, I am certainly not
particularly attached to the tests from patch 3 and I will be glad to
rip them out if that is the recommendation :-)
> I could imagine, for example, that it would be plenty enough to do
> something like this instead:
>
> -- snip --
> diff --git a/t/t4013-diff-various.sh b/t/t4013-diff-various.sh
> index 5c7b0122b4f..bf158be137f 100755
> --- a/t/t4013-diff-various.sh
> +++ b/t/t4013-diff-various.sh
> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
> test_description='Various diff formatting options'
>
> . ./test-lib.sh
> +. "$TEST_DIRECTORY"/diff-lib.sh
>
> test_expect_success setup '
>
> @@ -473,4 +474,24 @@ test_expect_success 'diff-tree --stdin with log formatting' '
> test_cmp expect actual
> '
>
> +test_expect_success '-I<regex>' '
> + seq 50 >I.txt &&
> + sed -e "s/13/ten and three/" -e "/7\$/d" <I.txt >J.txt &&
> + test_must_fail git diff --no-index -I"ten.*e" -I"^[124-9]" I.txt J.txt >actual &&
> + cat >expect <<-\EOF &&
> + diff --git a/I.txt b/J.txt
> + --- a/I.txt
> + +++ b/J.txt
> + @@ -34,7 +31,6 @@
> + 34
> + 35
> + 36
> + -37
> + 38
> + 39
> + 40
> + EOF
> + compare_diff_patch expect actual
> +'
> +
> test_done
> -- snap --
>
> Note how it tests various things in one go?
Right, neat, though this does not (yet) test:
- the interaction between -I and --ignore-blank-lines (this is visible
in code coverage),
- whether the list of hunks emitted varies for different -U<n> values,
- diffstat with -I<regex>,
- invalid regular expressions.
Would you like me to add these tests to your proposal or to skip them,
given that -I uses the same field for marking changes as ignored as
--ignore-blank-lines does?
> P.S.: My main interest in the `-I` option is its use case for `git
> range-diff` in Git's own context: if you want to compare your patches to
> what entered the `seen` branch, there will _always_ be a difference
> because Junio adds their DCO. Something like this can help that:
>
> git range-diff \
> -I'^ Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>$' \
> <my-patch-range> <the-equivalent-in-seen>
Right, makes sense, I have not thought of that use case.
--
Best regards,
Michał Kępień
