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=-3.9 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 00B0B1F667 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 06:27:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753394AbdHOG1l (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Aug 2017 02:27:41 -0400 Received: from bsmtp8.bon.at ([213.33.87.20]:9545 "EHLO bsmtp8.bon.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753366AbdHOG1j (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Aug 2017 02:27:39 -0400 Received: from dx.site (unknown [93.83.142.38]) by bsmtp8.bon.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3xWjFh28dnz5tlD; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 08:27:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by dx.site (Postfix) with ESMTP id D15A9274; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 08:27:35 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] t1002: stop using sum(1) To: Jonathan Nieder , =?UTF-8?Q?Ren=c3=a9_Scharfe?= Cc: Git List , Benoit Lecocq , Junio C Hamano References: <9f6e13d3-07ff-1eaa-9453-05ca26a3c1ff@web.de> <20170815004546.GA78174@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com> From: Johannes Sixt Message-ID: <53a9a3cd-f814-47a3-cc9b-977f9107614c@kdbg.org> Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 08:27:35 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170815004546.GA78174@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Am 15.08.2017 um 02:46 schrieb Jonathan Nieder: > Hi, > > René Scharfe wrote: > >> sum(1) is a command for calculating checksums of the contents of files. >> It was part of early editions of Unix ("Research Unix", 1972/1973, [1]). >> cksum(1) appeared in 4.4BSD (1993) as a replacement [2], and became part >> of POSIX.1-2008 [3]. OpenBSD 5.6 (2014) removed sum(1). >> >> We only use sum(1) in t1002 to check for changes in three files. On >> MinGW we use md5sum(1) instead. We could switch to the standard command >> cksum(1) for all platforms; MinGW comes with GNU coreutils now, which >> provides sum(1), cksum(1) and md5sum(1). Use our standard method for >> checking for file changes instead: test_cmp. >> >> It's more convenient because it shows differences nicely, it's faster on >> MinGW because we have a special implementation there based only on >> shell-internal commands, it's simpler as it allows us to avoid stripping >> out unnecessary entries from the checksum file using grep(1), and it's >> more consistent with the rest of the test suite. >> >> We already compare changed files with their expected new contents using >> diff(1), so we don't need to check with "test_must_fail test_cmp" if >> they differ from their original state. A later patch could convert the >> direct diff(1) calls to test_cmp as well. >> >> With all sum(1) calls gone, remove the MinGW-specific implementation >> from test-lib.sh as well. >> >> [1] http://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=V3/man/man1/sum.1 >> [2] http://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=4.4BSD/usr/share/man/cat1/cksum.0 >> [3] http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/cksum.html >> --- >> t/t1002-read-tree-m-u-2way.sh | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- >> t/test-lib.sh | 3 -- >> 2 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-) > > Nicely analyzed. May we forge your sign-off? > > [...] >> --- a/t/t1002-read-tree-m-u-2way.sh >> +++ b/t/t1002-read-tree-m-u-2way.sh > [...] >> @@ -132,8 +138,8 @@ test_expect_success \ >> git ls-files --stage >7.out && >> test_cmp M.out 7.out && >> check_cache_at frotz dirty && >> - sum bozbar frotz nitfol >actual7.sum && >> - if cmp M.sum actual7.sum; then false; else :; fi && >> + test_cmp bozbar.M bozbar && >> + test_cmp nitfol.M nitfol && > > This one is strange. What is that '! cmp' trying to check for? > Does the replacement capture the same thing? > > E.g., does it need a '! test_cmp frotz.M frotz &&' line? In the context that you stripped a 'diff frotz frotz1' occurs, i.e., a check for the expected content of the file whose content changes. Together with the new test_cmp lines, the new text is a stricter check than we have in the old text. The patch looks good. Reviewed-by: Johannes Sixt -- Hannes