On Sun, Jul 07, 2024 at 11:51:15PM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote: > > I did manually verify that it is OK after my fix, but do we want > > that to be part of the chainlint tests? Just leaving the line > > numbers in is a maintenance nightmare, since it depends on the order > > of concatenating all of the tests together (so our "expect" files > > would depend on all of the previous tests). But if we wanted to get > > fancy, we could perhaps store relative offsets in the expect file. I > > think it gets pretty complicated, though, since we print only > > problematic lines. > > Given the way the Makefile currently concatenates all the self-tests, > it would indeed be a nightmare to retain the line numbers. In the long > run, we probably ought someday to adopt Ævar's idea of checking the > self-test files individually[*] rather than en masse. With that > approach, it may make sense to revisit whether or not line numbers > should be present in the "expected" files. > > [*] https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAPig+cSBjsosRqoAafYN94Cco8+7SdUt0ND_jHS+jVPoM4K0JA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ I took a look at running each test individually. It's surprisingly quite a bit slower! About 4s instead of 200ms. There's a bit of low-hanging fruit to get it down to ~1.7s (which I'll include in my series). But in the end I punted on that for now, but did add line-number checks. Each expect file just knows its own numbers, and I use a bit of perl to handle the running offset. -Peff
