On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 09:16:57AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > I'm not sure where he suggests worse names. I'd think if anything we'd > > have better names, because they'd be even more meaningful (if people > > start using them for test selectors). FWIW, I also grep like that when > > looking for scripts. > > I didn't mean Jonathan suggested worse names. Unlike "I don't tend > to discover test scripts based on their filename", which was what > Jonathan said, I do look for tests based on their filename, so > having a good name matters (on the other hand, if you are the kind > of person who does not look for them by name, the naming may not > matter to you). Ah, I misunderstood. Thanks for clarifying (and I am very much in your camp that the names are useful). > As long as it is known that "filesystem" and "update-ref" can serve > as tokens to uniquely identify these two tests, it would be fine for > my purpose. But 0050 (under the rule that numbering must be unique) > would give me such an assurance much better without having to look > at any other test file. > > The word "filesystem"? Unless we have a rule that we can use each > unique word in test names only once (which of course is impractical) > I am not sure I can use it in place of 0050 without checking names > of other tests first. With your follow-up response: > So if the rule is to always spell out the full name if I wanted > uniqueness, then it would work. I think we are on the same page, and my intent was to match full names. So now you get "t0050" from some failed-test output (prove, or just the output from make failing), and you copy it into the command-line to use with "--test". And instead you'd just copy the full text name. It's a little less convenient because t1234 is short enough that I'd type it, and I'd probably cut-and-paste the text name. But other than that, I'd expect the procedure to be the same. The substring matches added by Elijah's series make sense for individual test snippets within a script, I think. And I think we could even add script-name matching now[1], without getting rid of the numbers. But if we do so, we should be careful to introduce it as an anchored match and not a substring match, to avoid having to switch it later. -Peff [1] And by "now" I don't mean we should hold up Elijah's patches for this feature, but that anybody who wishes to build it on top is free to do so without us having to make a decision on ditching the numbers entirely.