On 2020-10-24 09:53:18-0700, Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 3:49 AM Đoàn Trần Công Danh
> <congdanhqx@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 2020-10-23 16:01:16+0000, Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > +test_expect_merge_algorithm () {
> > > + status_for_recursive=$1
> > > + shift
> > > + status_for_ort=$1
> > > + shift
> > > +
> > > + if test "$GIT_TEST_MERGE_ALGORITHM" = ort
> > > + then
> > > + test_expect_${status_for_ort} "$@"
> > > + else
> > > + test_expect_${status_for_recursive} "$@"
> > > -test_expect_failure 'check symlink modify/modify' '
> > > +test_expect_merge_algorithm failure success 'check symlink modify/modify' '
> >
> > I find this series of "failure success" hard to decode without
> > understanding what it would be, then I need to keep rememberring which
> > status is corresponding with with algorithm.
> >
> > Perhaps this patch is a bit easier to read. This is largely based on
> > your patch. (I haven't read other patches, yet).
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> It is easier to read and I think something along these lines would
> make a lot of sense if this weren't a transient change (the idea is to
> eventually drop the recursive backend in favor of ort, and then these
> can all switch to just using test_expect_success). Maybe it still
> makes sense to make further changes here anyway, but if we do go this
> route, there are 1-2 things we can/should change:
>
> First, while a lot of my contributions aren't that important, and the
Mine aren't that important, either
> new test_expect_* function certainly falls in that category, one of
> the driving goals behind a new merge algorithm was fixing up edge and
> corner cases that were just too problematic in the recursive backend.
> Thus, the patch where I get to flip the test expectation is one that I
> care about more than most out of the (I'm guessing on this number)
Make sense.
> 100+ patches that will be part of this new merge algorithm. Having
> you take over ownership of that patch thus isn't right; we should
> instead keep my original patch and apply your suggested changes on top
> (or have a patch from you introducing a new function first, and then
> have a patch from me using it to flip test expectations on top).
You can take back the ownership, the patch was based on yours, anyway.
I wrote like that since I need to rewrite part of the message to match
with my changes ;)
No need to generate extra noise of additional patch.
> Second, I think that lines like
> test_expect_merge_success recursive=failure ...
> read like a contradiction and are also confusing. I think it'd be
> better if it read something like
> test_expect_merge recursive=failure ort=success ...
> or something along those lines.
When I wrote the patch, I was expecting something like
test_expect_merge_success recursive=failure,other=failure ...
in order to merge all algorithm into single parameters.
How about something like:
test_expect_merge_success exception=recursive,other ...
Not that we have "other" algorithm to begin with.
Thanks,
-- Danh
