Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > So, this patch is incorrect about keeping things working. The > options are: > > 1. Keep the repeated ".*" and be clear about the expectations. > (This could drop the "remove trailing comma" line.) > > 2. Find another way to test this --write-midx behavior while > keeping the stricter test_subcommand_inexact helper. > > 3. Something else??? The result of doing #1 is still "inexact" but at that point it is unclear if we are being way too inexact to be useful. If the looseness bothers us too much, we may decide that #1 is not worth doing. But obviously the looseness did not bother us that much until last week, so probably an obvious #3, do nothing, letting the sleeping dog lie, might be what we want to do? If we were to pursue #2, then, would we tightening the test for the write-midx using the "stricter" helper, or would the stricter one be too strict to be useful for that case? If we are rewriting the write-midx test by not using the "stricter" helper, then we would be creating a stricter one nobody uses, which sounds quite wasteful. It seems that the only case that could result in a result that is better than "do nothing" is if we can use a different pattern with the "stricter" helper to express what "write-midx" test wanted to do, but because what we need to fuzzily match on the command line in that test includes a generated temporary filename, I do not think it is likely to be easily doable. So, perhaps #3 ;-)?
