Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 09:55:06AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> >> You'd need to identify all of the possible diff code paths in order to >> >> add tests for them, which is the same thing you had to do to fix the >> >> code paths. I was mostly just commenting that we're not likely to be >> >> able to rely on existing tests to help us here. >> >> >> >> It might be worth adding a test that shows off your improved diff >> >> behavior, though I would be OK if it was a representative command and >> >> not exhaustive. I think adding to t7006 should be fine. >> > >> > Agreed. >> >> It seems that this topic is waiting for a reroll? > > I think we could go either way. I outlined a few further possible steps, > but there is no need to hold up this first step. The only question is > whether or not to add a single test to show off and protect the > improvement. Hmph, a few messages upthread <UZMh2lyzbLOgsf0PXfMnq6HnWVnCK3y36jY3IMKUykPi74ztNucf8bgywoeO0DdeApq31JDDGMZiEya99zAcI3l8y_zcVqiN8FpEnT1DRZU=@proton.me> (Ugh, why do some MUAs or mail providers use such an overly long message ID, Yuck) was where I got the impression that we were waiting for a reroll. I am not all that convinced that sprinkling setup_diff_pager() call all over the place is a good idea from longer-term maintainability's sake to begin with, by the way. What problem are we really solving? Folks who run "git diff --no-such-option" see "behaviour inconsistency"? All I see is "error: invalid option: --invalid" followed by a help message, which is quite expected. So, I donno. Thanks.
