On Mon, Oct 31 2022, Jeff King wrote: > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 09:47:08PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > [...] >> That being said your change is obviously smaller, so if we'd prefer >> that in first as a band-aid I'm fine with that. >> >> But I'd really like to object to the "it is not actually important how >> many...", it's crappy UX to spew duplicate output at the user, and we >> should avoid it. >> >> So it does matter, and we get it wrong not just in this but also some >> other cases. > > Yeah, I think it is crappy UX, too. It's just that I think the tests > should not _asserting_ the bad behavior. At most, they should tolerate > the bad behavior as a band-aid. So I think Dscho's patch is doing the > right thing (and I do agree that we should fix the immediate CI pain by > adjusting the tests, and letting the user-visible fix proceed > independently). The tests aren't just asserting the bad behavior, they're also ensuring that it doesn't get worse. 1 warning is ideal, 2-3 is bad, but tolerable, but if we start emitting 500 of these it would be nice to know. I've found a couple of regressions like that in other areas, i.e. where our tests didn't spot some output change because we were selectively grepping things, but where it would have been nice to spot it at the time.
