On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 12:04:50PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > That is an interesting way to demonstrate how orthogonal the issues > > are, which in turn means that it is not such a big deal to add back > > the coverage to the part that goes to contrib/scalar/. As the actual > > implementation, it is a bit too icky, though. > > So, how about doing it this way? This is based on 'master' and does > not cover contrib/scalar, but if we want to go this route, it should > be trivial to do it on top of a merge of ab/ci-updates and js/scalar > into 'master'. Good idea? Terrible idea? Not good enough? I don't mind the general direction, but... > +# Additional tests from places in contrib/ that are prepared to take > +# "make -C $there test", but expects that the primary build is done > +# already. > +test-extra: all > + $(MAKE) -C contrib/diff-highlight test > + $(MAKE) -C contrib/mw-to-git test > + $(MAKE) -C contrib/subtree test I'm not sure of the quality of tests in some of the contrib stuff. The tests in diff-highlight worked for me when I added them, but it's not like I ever run them regularly, or that they've been tested on a wide variety of platforms. So I think this is as likely to cause somebody a headache due to a dumb portability problem or random bitrot as it is to actually find a bug. I guess test-extra wouldn't be run by default, but only via CI, so maybe that limits the blast radius sufficiently. For diff-highlight in particular, you need to have a working perl, so you'd probably want to at least wrap it with a NO_PERL ifndef. For mw-to-git, you need to have MediaWiki::API installed, though I think the tests at least notice this and skip everything if you don't. -Peff
