On 2024.02.07 12:55, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Josh Steadmon <steadmon@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > `test-tool run-command testsuite` currently assumes that it will only be > > running the shell test suite, and therefore filters out anything that > > does not match a hardcoded pattern of "t[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]-*.sh". > > > > Later in this series, we'll adapt `test-tool run-command testsuite` to > > also support unit tests, which do not follow the same naming conventions > > as the shell tests, so this hardcoded pattern is inconvenient. > > Makes sense to explain what future steps this prepares the codebase > for like this. > > > Since `testsuite` also allows specifying patterns on the command-line, > > let's just remove this pattern. As noted in [1], there are no longer any > > uses of `testsuite` in our codebase, it should be OK to break backwards > > compatibility in this case. We also add a new filter to avoid trying to > > execute "." and "..", so that users who wish to execute every test in a > > directory can do so without specifying a pattern. > > As we discussed in Peff's Makefile change that enumerates "which are > the unit-test programs?" Generally, $(wildcard) and readdir() to > slurp everything in a directory, including stuff that is an > untracked cruft, is not an excellent idea. > > This is not an end-user facing program and we are in full control of > its input (most notably, "which ones should we be running?"), I do > not think it would be a huge issue, though. Would you prefer if I remove the default behavior of "run everything in the CWD" and require passing in at least one filename filter?
