On Tue, Oct 17, 2023, at 22:13, Junio C Hamano wrote: > As I already said in my response to the cover letter, while I am > surprised that the series managed to make each step (and it alone) > succeed after the set-up (applaud!), I am not sure if it is really > worth doing. As the business of test scripts is to test git, and it > means that we should always assume that we are dealing with a > potentially broken version of git. By running so many git > subcommands in test_when_finished, each of them may be from a buggy > implementation of git, we cannot be really sure that we are > resetting the environment to the pristine state. We should strive > to do as little as possible in test_when_finished. I'll have to think more about this part in order to understand the ramifications. Thanks for the feedback. > This is even worse; it has to redo much of what the previous test > did. Developers cannot be reasonably expected to maintain this > duplication when we need to change the earlier test. > > While I am impressed that "set-up + individual single test" was made > to work, I am not convinced that the changes that took us to get > there are reasonable. The end result looks much less maintainable > and more wasteful with duplicated steps. > > Thanks. I can rewrite this one—as well as others—to use the `setup` keyword in the original test instead. But dropping the series is also fine. I am still very new to this test suite. Cheers -- Kristoffer Haugsbakk
