From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 551C72027C for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 13:40:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751205AbdE3NkK (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 May 2017 09:40:10 -0400 Received: from avasout07.plus.net ([84.93.230.235]:52048 "EHLO avasout07.plus.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751106AbdE3NkJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 May 2017 09:40:09 -0400 Received: from [10.0.2.15] ([143.159.212.80]) by avasout07 with smtp id Sdg41v00A1keHif01dg6NB; Tue, 30 May 2017 14:40:06 +0100 X-CM-Score: 0.00 X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=CrLPSjwD c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=n+zECcf3rkBNBoU0FNF4VQ==:117 a=n+zECcf3rkBNBoU0FNF4VQ==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=EBOSESyhAAAA:8 a=LoG4C5gyAAAA:8 a=UI62F6zQfZVIbar_Ef8A:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=Vr7qJMbYMNsA:10 a=yJM6EZoI5SlJf8ks9Ge_:22 a=szc4L7tIoTp4SOWyBAQL:22 X-AUTH: ramsayjones@:2500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mingw: verify that paths are not mistaken for remote nicknames To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Johannes Sixt , =?UTF-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsCBCamFybWFz?= =?UTF-8?Q?on?= , Johannes Schindelin , Git Mailing List References: <20170526033510.1793-1-gitster@pobox.com> <20170526033510.1793-14-gitster@pobox.com> <17b3d445-0cc7-2000-dc67-11fb53c7040b@kdbg.org> <34029b29-9f65-78c0-c2ed-649b179a79ac@kdbg.org> From: Ramsay Jones Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 14:40:04 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 30/05/17 01:03, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Ramsay Jones writes: > >> See commit c7018be509 ("test: allow skipping the remainder", 18-05-2017) >> which is currently merged to the 'next' branch (merge 03b8a61e47 of the >> 'jc/skip-test-in-the-middle' branch). >> >> (see also http://testanything.org) >> >> If you look at http://testanything.org//tap-specification.html, it shows >> that you are allowed to annotate a plan of '1..0' with a SKIP directive >> to explain why no tests in a file were run. However, a plan with '1..n' >> (for any n > 0) must not have any annotation. (Back in 2012, when I wrote >> commit bf4b721932, I found much better documentation than the above!) >> >> So, after commit c7018be509, you can now use the 'skip_all' facility >> after having run some tests; it now converts that into an 'SKIP comment' >> just before the test plan, effectively skipping the remainder of the >> tests in the file. (since we are using a 'trailing plan', and have thus >> not declared how many tests we had intended to run, we can output an >> accurate plan). > > Yes, but I consider that c7018be509 is an ugly workaround, not a > part of a properly designed framework. Unless it is absolutely > necessary to run some tests before we may conditionally want to say > "skip_all/test_done", we should strive to add tests _after_ these > conditional skil_all/test_done is done. yes, I don't disagree with that (which is why I said that I would have split t5545 into two files). ;-) > In this case, I do not see there is a strong reason why the new test > must come before the "setup" test. Sure, it does not use UNCPATH so > the new test may be able to run even when the current path cannot be > spelled as UNC, but that is a natural fallout of (ab)using the test > script that was meant for UNC testing for something else, so I think > a proper way out would be either (1) to use a separate script, if > the new test wants to run whether UNC path can be determined, Yes, I had intended to suggest this (or an existing script, protected by the MINGW prerequisite), but forgot! > or (2) > just accept the fact that the new test will only be run when UNC > paths are tested. I prefer (1). > Relying on the hack c7018be509 did is much less > appealing. ATB, Ramsay Jones