On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 03:32:06AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > If we toss that out, then in theory that widens the options. And in some > ways it's nice to use git://, because it has fewer dependencies and so > is run on more platforms. But it strikes me as a pretty unrealistic > test, just because credentials in git:// URLs make no sense and are not > something anybody would do. > > As you note, since the error comes from remote.c, it would still > trigger. But it's a bit more "white box" testing than I think makes > sense here. I prefer the original tests' method of trying to create > plausible real-world scenarios and seeing how they behave (and I think > my patch even improves that, since having an actual server on the other > end is the usual case). Agreed. Despite some of the niceties you mention, I concur that testing http(s) is more realistic and worth doing. Thanks, Taylor
