From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91EE01F4B4 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 04:16:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730012AbgJTEQa (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Oct 2020 00:16:30 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:58006 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729645AbgJTEQa (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Oct 2020 00:16:30 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-x543.google.com (mail-pg1-x543.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::543]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0672C0613CE for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 21:16:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x543.google.com with SMTP id h6so290780pgk.4 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 21:16:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=z2Esf2RLGMrSWYxFeVfw0Q3fU4I5aS81qQzgRC/xlr8=; b=LaJeEIOyuETvrmMNr7W8upA+RqF0wUuXzXeDyCN3tjxBvAU0XRgiOkvGt6ojLH+YbM p8H/5wWqnFes16jNba9R9vmjV/8n2EFTB+3dXyFdGaQl60+HJIzY5TdB8ZFBLMwEpcEO NxYy/7AUFCPd9Ces6qpHdkBWrb5Dms9P0M8Ayd41RqRMLOfsdnMyzFHPFgKIM+Kjbmrv g/eTLreJvxMaOJPrEBzNzOr9xiF5V1j4qAcO7d2ij/G0KF+ovgjx2nxSmc1CQcL0aMRm xl4bqx3QtPCjY2Uc/66GMQ4IEVNdQzhkgNVXcykRpbAgC0ZcpSIxwag9HgXO5YQbPLYM +T4A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=z2Esf2RLGMrSWYxFeVfw0Q3fU4I5aS81qQzgRC/xlr8=; b=rjYvpHoocVXJExJS4nn3fVquvT2zdtpTupeTlQu4bIsqklWkl2ANy/BAzcDeKJxIPR Hgp3SIq1POBMBcwA9CsvM92AYyTy/haK0EV72Ar1mkUzoe8c0NcBEwBPc0MyDryMkNaE fwmsrmj7xlyZns5cY+pLRn1e5eppIFN6x7eClvAsBQO+dUc6ubV/piP0rjEJanP+6ww2 D19fIYYo7p2WS2AIKUH+xiXabaH91IY613k/K+5W3+xhKbzjavEXwoN6bbvqYYtRoQzw sfk6bw7fZJfTalH4u993P5p6TxtZIQE7W2glZ7xsXk/wyWEBw+9iWJ75YbnwPo5FtUut a5qw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531e/oJkm0Lf+dkV0LcZvaSGQEuLxm9QLJc1CsEavFEkcBzNnYIl mrDQEP2cCFJHa/mT+amPlbI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxakwEcXd0iDo93lwnsOPTvZxBCMpunonANatG2W1ySEEGb1oRhKQslViUmri/VWnB7CFuqzw== X-Received: by 2002:a65:6a0a:: with SMTP id m10mr1082342pgu.162.1603167388239; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 21:16:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com ([2620:15c:2ce:200:a28c:fdff:fee1:cedb]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r6sm474453pfg.85.2020.10.19.21.16.26 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 19 Oct 2020 21:16:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 21:16:25 -0700 From: Jonathan Nieder To: Matheus Tavares Bernardino Cc: git , Jeff Hostetler , Christian Couder , Jeff King , Thomas Gummerer , Elijah Newren Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 16/19] parallel-checkout: add tests for basic operations Message-ID: <20201020041625.GB15198@google.com> References: <64b41d537e68a45f2bb0a0c3078f2cd314b5a57d.1600814153.git.matheus.bernardino@usp.br> <20201020013558.GA15198@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Matheus Tavares Bernardino wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 10:36 PM Jonathan Nieder wrote: >> Can we use an artificial repo instead of git.git? Using git.git as >> test data seems like a recipe for hard-to-reproduce test failures. > > I think we could maybe drop these tests. There are already some > similar tests below these, which use an artificial repository. The > goal of using git.git in this section was to test parallel-checkout > with a real-world repo, and hopefully catch errors that we might not > see with small artificial ones. But you have a very valid concern, as > well. Hmm, I'm not sure what is the best solution to this case. What > do you think? I see. I suppose my preference would be to have a real-world example in t/perf/ (see t/perf/README for how it allows an arbitrary repo to be passed in) instead of in the regression tests. In the regression testsuite I'd focus more on particular behaviors I want to test (e.g., a file being replaced by a directory, that kind of thing). Behaviors exercised by git.git are in some sense the *least* important thing to test here, since developers in the Git project know to advocate for those and exercise them day-to-day. Where the testsuite shines is in being able to advocate for use cases that are exercised by other populations --- a testsuite failure can be a reminder to not forget about the features other people need that are not part of our own daily lives. Thanks, Jonathan