On 3/23/2022 10:53 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > 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 ;-)? I'll default to #3 (do nothing), but if this shows up again I'll plan on adding a comment to the helper to be clear on how "inexact" the helper really is. Thanks, -Stolee
