Matheus Tavares Bernardino wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 10:36 PM Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Can we use an artificial repo instead of git.git? Using git.git as >> test data seems like a recipe for hard-to-reproduce test failures. > > I think we could maybe drop these tests. There are already some > similar tests below these, which use an artificial repository. The > goal of using git.git in this section was to test parallel-checkout > with a real-world repo, and hopefully catch errors that we might not > see with small artificial ones. But you have a very valid concern, as > well. Hmm, I'm not sure what is the best solution to this case. What > do you think? I see. I suppose my preference would be to have a real-world example in t/perf/ (see t/perf/README for how it allows an arbitrary repo to be passed in) instead of in the regression tests. In the regression testsuite I'd focus more on particular behaviors I want to test (e.g., a file being replaced by a directory, that kind of thing). Behaviors exercised by git.git are in some sense the *least* important thing to test here, since developers in the Git project know to advocate for those and exercise them day-to-day. Where the testsuite shines is in being able to advocate for use cases that are exercised by other populations --- a testsuite failure can be a reminder to not forget about the features other people need that are not part of our own daily lives. Thanks, Jonathan
