[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       git
Subject:    Re: [PATCH] t7001-mv.sh:modernizing test script using function
From:       Martin_Ågren <martin.agren () gmail ! com>
Date:       2022-10-31 17:59:40
Message-ID: CAN0heSpvgtLG5o9i_cSbn0zHfNN+GJFYY6oBXmHUs8FniW5oOw () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi Debra,

On Sun, 30 Oct 2022 at 18:35, Debra Obondo via GitGitGadget
<gitgitgadget@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Debra Obondo <debraobondo@gmail.com>
>
> Test script to verify the presence/absence of files, paths, directories,
> symlinks and other features in 'git mv' command are using the command
> format:
>
> 'test (-e|f|d|h|...)'
>
> Replace them with helper functions of format:
>
> 'test_path_is_*'

This is a good idea.

The subject of this patch could use a space after the colon. You could
also write "modernize" to give an order to the code base. So something
like

  t7001-mv.sh: modernize test script using function

perhaps. "Function" is a bit vague, perhaps.

I wanted to comment on this:

>  test_expect_success 'mv --dry-run does not move file' '
>         git mv -n path0/COPYING MOVED &&
> -       test -f path0/COPYING &&
> -       test ! -f MOVED
> +       test_path_is_file path0/COPYING &&
> +       ! test_path_is_file MOVED
>  '

It is my understanding that we prefer to only use such a helper when we
really expect the file to exist. If the path is not a file, this helper
prints a helpful message before returning with an error.

Here, this means we will emit this 'helpful'

  File MOVED doesn't exist

on every test run, when really everything is as it should. And if the
file is actually there, i.e., we have a bug, we'll emit nothing -- but
that is precisely when we would want some diagnostics such as

  Path exists:
  ... MOVED ...

to show us that the file actually exists, contrary to the test's
expectations.

Such output is precisely what `test_path_is_missing` would give us. :-)

My gut feeling is that where this patch adds "! test_path_foo", it
should use "test_path_bar" instead, for various values of "foo" and
"bar". What do you think about that?


Martin
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]