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-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 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,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47AA61F463 for ; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 14:20:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727090AbfIZOUe (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Sep 2019 10:20:34 -0400 Received: from mail-io1-f65.google.com ([209.85.166.65]:46966 "EHLO mail-io1-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726500AbfIZOUe (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Sep 2019 10:20:34 -0400 Received: by mail-io1-f65.google.com with SMTP id c6so6858256ioo.13 for ; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 07:20:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=QDego3gEKzsT9wqnSmMH9L8M5RO9y2ff0Mpi/qeNHRk=; b=tb5wKVEWYqfbOKDBqNcH8f9I0BaWl+sj6XgDkJUWGKca/kv64n3pxHiU25x4sH+S4t wJ5TIdmqGQeYgwdZ3DRxI8xNf5m7xNGUqDTRzgy//+RFu4qWzThcVtmNj4Yx7Ao1K+9r LgDVKf1q+MFVuhyFCeJu4uyivXEYFW7eerxKq3iviK7ifslBpT+yTq4+oCqfcgG/cFUA FUNOnwr2RPjQdEG3HLiT12ow4j3hF2dfQO0HXjNpJKR4G/ccNCvjKdTcKKp4YpX7xQyB YnZVP1zDmlTP/9taEuDTYQP9AuTam7aGE+6hjNURCkGbgNCsPwZHazqXszOdEQou934b jL/w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=QDego3gEKzsT9wqnSmMH9L8M5RO9y2ff0Mpi/qeNHRk=; b=DSHTiW8vMVbkJNj4hlicw1d0oQ+Sp7M8mPtgIPKZwXuPFPe7abBr1OKsbjDWtQH9EK 1Pn3Ds8A2YwlnW+oMNaGkIlmimx8vkGtKiLEyR0FcQ0y7l/2gMldt7CZTDfHf46wW5dz pjIH7fNZgtD5VgvocdX2Bj9ChVOki4uIwSoj19fPODx3VpJxRXBZ6eKOXpHpOVFTL+z+ txvL9Mc/o9xV0R4PaafCJM66tFj+zTZCZelmK2TrK3C/H2XUmQOd4xmSa596yS2WHoSM 2vljPIHFCTKy1pTq7z/oMNdAsexwJnlzm7KIsJ/4x+Kdj/70qr61+e0/khzwoAoSvMYr MVRQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUndaxTv/X/xbJahze/R69iwFjusI5KFUEQ2kWAteeu1NTVlpED zLb98/l8mIENN7QbA07YiZ55iNmV1DCRSZQRrdc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzJGGftYk4PmIuqzlItBn996yDs2QQTjYw+A0c5uaYHkj5dqnPSv5mwiNx1JAuexsjQm8kXEXlnpu30otBZAwc= X-Received: by 2002:a92:4994:: with SMTP id k20mr2552988ilg.159.1569507631725; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 07:20:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190520120636.GA12634@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20190520121301.GD11212@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20190524063955.GD25694@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20190528213529.GG24650@sigill.intra.peff.net> In-Reply-To: From: Alejandro Sanchez Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 16:20:05 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] am: fix --interactive HEAD tree resolution To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: Jeff King , git@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Hi, Are there any updates to this problem? Thank you, Alex On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 1:57 PM Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > Hi Peff, > > On Tue, 28 May 2019, Jeff King wrote: > > > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 01:06:21PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > > > Or do you prefer having a one-liner? I'd rather come up with a more > > > > generic helper to cover this case, that can run any command and compare > > > > it to a single argument (or stdin). E.g.,: > > > > > > > > test_cmp_cmd no-conflict git log -1 --format=%s > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > test_cmp_cmd - git foo <<-\EOF > > > > multi-line > > > > expectation > > > > EOF > > > > > > I guess that you and me go into completely opposite directions here. I > > > want something *less* general. Because I want to optimize for the > > > unfortunate times when a test fails and most likely somebody else than the > > > original author of the test case is tasked with figuring out what the heck > > > goes wrong. > > > > > > You seem to want to optimize for writing test cases. Which I find -- with > > > all due respect -- the wrong thing to optimize for. It is already dirt > > > easy to write new test cases. But *good* test cases (i.e. easy to debug > > > ones)? Not so much. > > > > Hmm. I too want the test output to be useful to people other than the > > test author. But I find the output from test_cmp perfectly fine there. > > My first step in digging into a failure is usually to look at what > > commands the test is running, which generally makes it obvious why we > > are expecting one thing and seeing another (or at least, just as obvious > > as a hand-written message). > > > > So to me the two are equal on that front, which makes me want to go with > > the thing that is shorter to write, as it makes it more likely the test > > writer will write it. The _worst_ option IMHO is a straight-up use of > > "test" which provides no output at all in the test log of what value we > > _did_ see. That requires the person looking into the failure to re-run > > the test, which is hard if it's a remote CI, or if the failure does not > > always reproduce. > > If you think your version is easier to debug, then I won't object. > > Thanks, > Dscho