Hi Junio, On Mon, 23 May 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > > >> +test_expect_success 'identification of reverted commit (reference)' ' > >> + git checkout --detach to-ident && > >> + git revert --reference --no-edit HEAD && > >> + git cat-file commit HEAD >actual.raw && > >> + grep "^This reverts " actual.raw >actual && > >> + echo "This reverts commit $(git show -s --pretty=reference HEAD^)." >expect && > >> + test_cmp expect actual > >> +' > > > > If it was up to me, I would combine these three test cases, if only to > > help the `--run=<single-number>` case (the latter two depend on the > > side effect of the first one to create a `to-ident` tag). > > I wonder if our prereq infrastructure is lightweight and scalable enough > so that we can easily add a support a pseudo-prerequisite PREVIOUS that > lets us say > > test_expect_success PREVIOUS "identification ..." ' > ... > ' > > to mean that this test requires the previous test has not been > skipped. In theory, this sounds good to me. In practice, however, side effects are awful and make everything harder, from developing code to debugging to helping new contributors. I wish we would do away with them altogether and have something more akin to the before/after constructs known from e.g. TestNG (think `@BeforeTest` and `@BeforeClass`). One option would be to mark `setup` steps completely differently, sort of imitating the prereq infrastructure instead of using `test_expect_success`. Kind of prereqs, but required to pass. This could potentially allow us to randomize the order in which the test cases are run, to identify and fix (unintended) side effects. A complication is that we have nothing in the way of `@AfterClass`, i.e. we do not have a way to, say, run an Apache instance for the lifecycle of a given test script _and tear it down at the end_. Another, rather obvious complication is that we have 17 years of commit history introducing side effects left and right :laughing: Ciao, Dscho
