From: Paul Tan <pyokagan@gmail.com>
To: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Cc: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr>,
Git List <git@vger.kernel.org>, Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC/GSOC] make git-pull a builtin
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 01:39:48 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACRoPnT04p-6o2u984a21RvHkk6CqpZWRyafg=T+WAPOD3hiTg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4388b6e4005c2872aa7f5f83024f021d@www.dscho.org>
Hi,
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 1:35 AM, Johannes Schindelin
<johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
>> Maybe code coverage tools could help here so we only need to focus on
>> the code paths that are untested by the test suite. At the minimum,
>> all of the non-trivial code paths in both the shell script and the
>> converted builtin must be covered by tests. This should help to
>> eliminate most sources of breakages. Anything further than that would
>> require an experienced understanding of all the possible important
>> inputs to be tested, which I personally feel would make the project
>> quite tedious.
>>
>> I see git already has gcov support. For shell scripts, maybe kcov[1]
>> could be used. With some slight code changes, I managed to generate a
>> report for the git-pull tests[2] which should at least provide a good
>> starting point for how the tests can be improved.
>
> While it is often a tempting idea to make test suites as thorough as possible, there lies a true danger herein. True war story: in one of the projects I was involved in, the test suite grew to a size that one complete run lasted two weeks. Yes, that is fourteen days. Needless to say: this test suite was run rarely. How useful is a test suite that is run rarely? More useful than a non-existent one, to be sure, but it is still more of a burden than a boon.
>
> Now, on Windows the test suite takes almost three hours to run. This really, really slows down development.
>
> So while we are not yet at the "too large to be useful state", I would caution against trying to get there.
>
> Instead, I would really like to focus on the *usage*. Calling `git grep "git pull" t/` should give you an idea what usage of `git pull` is already tested. It should be pretty easy to come up with a list of *common* use cases, and if any of them are not covered, adding tests for them is simple and straight-forward, too.
The code coverage tools can help here as well. The kcov output clearly
shows which options of git-pull are currently not being tested. But
yes, I agree that the test suite shouldn't be relied too much on
compared to code inspection and review.
On another important topic, though, along with git-pull.sh, I'm
looking for another script to convert in parallel with git-pull.sh so
that there will be no blocks due to patch review. Generally, I think
rewriting scripts that are called frequently by users, or spawn a lot
of processes due to loops, would be most desirable because the runtime
gains would be much higher. A quick review of the scripts shows that
git-am.sh, git-rebase--interactive.sh and git-quiltimport.sh have
pretty heavy loops with lots of process spawning that grows with
input.
I'm currently leaning with git-am because not only is it a frequently
used command, git-rebase--am.sh (for non-interactive rebase) calls it
as well. In fact, quick tests show that it takes up 98% of
git-rebase's execution time on Windows, so if git-am's performance
improves it would be a huge win on many fronts. git-am's code also
seems to be manageable for a 3-month project.
Anyway, I would like to know if you (or anyone else) have any scripts in mind.
(I also think that just 2 scripts would be enough to fill the 3
months, but that might be me just being too conservative)
Regards,
Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-22 17:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-03-17 13:57 [PATCH/RFC/GSOC] make git-pull a builtin Paul Tan
2015-03-18 8:38 ` Stephen Robin
2015-03-18 9:24 ` Johannes Schindelin
2015-03-18 9:00 ` Johannes Schindelin
2015-03-21 14:00 ` Paul Tan
2015-03-21 17:27 ` Johannes Schindelin
2015-03-18 17:52 ` Matthieu Moy
2015-03-21 13:23 ` Paul Tan
2015-03-21 17:35 ` Johannes Schindelin
2015-03-22 17:39 ` Paul Tan [this message]
2015-03-23 9:07 ` Johannes Schindelin
2015-03-23 10:18 ` Duy Nguyen
2015-03-24 15:58 ` Paul Tan
2015-03-18 22:26 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-03-21 13:40 ` Paul Tan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CACRoPnT04p-6o2u984a21RvHkk6CqpZWRyafg=T+WAPOD3hiTg@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=pyokagan@gmail.com \
--cc=Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=johannes.schindelin@gmx.de \
--cc=pclouds@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).