On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 12:44 AM Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 10:59:03AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote: > > --- > > Makefile | 1 + > > t/helper/test-find-pack.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > t/helper/test-tool.c | 1 + > > t/helper/test-tool.h | 1 + > > 4 files changed, 38 insertions(+) > > create mode 100645 t/helper/test-find-pack.c > > Everything that you wrote here seems reasonable to me, and the > implementation of the new test tool is very straightforward. > > I'm pretty sure that everything here is correct, and we'll implicitly > test the behavior of the new helper in following patches. > > That said, I think that it might be prudent here to "test the tests" and > write a simple test script that exercises this test helper over a more > trivial case. There is definitely prior art for testing our helpers > directly in the t00?? tests. Ok, I have written a new t0080-find-pack.sh test script for this in the version 4 I just sent. I have also changed `test-tool find-pack` so that it now accepts a `--check-count <n>` option. This addresses some of your comments on another patch in the previous version of this series. As the code is now a bit more complex, there is more justification for a test script. Thanks.
