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=-4.0 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 55DAB2095F for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 22:36:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752713AbdCVWgI (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Mar 2017 18:36:08 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:49841 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751997AbdCVWgG (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Mar 2017 18:36:06 -0400 Received: (qmail 31645 invoked by uid 109); 22 Mar 2017 22:36:05 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 22:36:05 +0000 Received: (qmail 870 invoked by uid 111); 22 Mar 2017 22:36:18 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 18:36:18 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 22 Mar 2017 18:36:00 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 18:36:00 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , Git Mailing List , Lars Hjemli , Christian Couder , Carlos Rica , Samuel Tardieu , Tom Grennan , Karthik Nayak Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/16] tag: change misleading --list documentation Message-ID: <20170322223600.huyel6j5wl644ddf@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20170321125901.10652-1-avarab@gmail.com> <20170321125901.10652-11-avarab@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 03:26:21PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes: > > > of things you think we should be putting in the test suite. I.e. > > should the tests be: > > > > a) Only be a collection of invocations of git we'd be comfortable > > showing to someone as "this works, and this is how you should do it", > > or things that explicitly fail marked with test_must_fail. > > > > b) or a) && also various surprising combinations of things we don't > > necessarily want to encourage or even support in the future, but which > > are in there so if we change them, we at least know our change changed > > something that worked before. > > I am strongly inclined to (a). If we cannot decide when we designed > the feature, and we anticipate that we may want to change it later, > then documenting the choice in a test or two may be a way to remind > the choice we happened to have made, but in general I do not think > we want to promise (to ourselves) more than what we are willing to > commit to. I've occasionally[1] added tests that are "what we happen to produce now", but I almost always mark them with a comment either in the test script or in the commit message. What I'm _most_ concerned about is a developer later breaking the test, but being unsure if they were breaking some real-world case (and not being able to find clues in the history). A secondary concern would be people using the test snippets as guidance on what is normal or encouraged. So I could live with these patches, but I'd prefer to see a comment somewhere. And I think I'd have a slight inclination to just stick to (a) in the first place, unless there is a really good reason to cover the test (like that we do not care between behaviors X and Y, but we need to check that it does one of them, and not Z). -Peff [1] E.g., see the comment in t3204 from a356e8e2a (t3204: test git-branch @-expansion corner cases, 2017-03-02).