Re: [PATCH] t3419: drop EXPENSIVE tests

["brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1550 bytes --]

On 2020-03-22 at 07:51:40, Jeff King wrote:
> When t3419 was originally written, it was designed to run a smaller test
> for correctness, and then the same test with a larger number of patches
> for performance. But it seems unlikely the latter was helping us:
> 
>  - it was marked with EXPENSIVE, so hardly anybody ran it anyway
> 
>  - there's no indication that it was more likely to find bugs than the
>    smaller case (the commit message isn't very helpful, but the original
>    cover letter describes it as: "The first patch adds correctness and
>    (optional) performance tests".
> 
>  - the timing results are shown only via test_debug(). So also not run
>    unless the user says "-d", and then not provided in any
>    machine-readable form.
> 
> If we're interested in performance regressions, a script in t/perf would
> be more appropriate. I didn't add one here, because it's not at all
> clear to me that what the script is timing is even all that interesting.
> 
> Let's simplify the script by dropping the EXPENSIVE run. That in turn
> lets us drop the do_tests() wrapper, which lets us consistently use
> single-quotes for our test snippets. And we can drop the useless
> test_debug() timings, as well as their run() helper. And finally, while
> we're here, we can replace the count() helper with the standard
> test_seq().

I'm also fine with this solution.  As long as this test doesn't fail
with EXPENSIVE, I'm happy.
-- 
brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US
OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 263 bytes --]