From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Sunshine Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 3/6] t0040-parse-options: improve test coverage Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 13:55:36 -0400 Message-ID: References: <010201540cb60832-9402a692-3caa-47a1-9e8e-ae5a1bc7eb2f-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com> <010201540cb60965-887d5e4b-b12d-4477-8271-eefa349ceddd-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Git List To: Pranit Bauva X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Apr 27 19:55:43 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1avTgd-0005sZ-75 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 27 Apr 2016 19:55:43 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752863AbcD0Rzj (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Apr 2016 13:55:39 -0400 Received: from mail-ig0-f196.google.com ([209.85.213.196]:35178 "EHLO mail-ig0-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752287AbcD0Rzi (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Apr 2016 13:55:38 -0400 Received: by mail-ig0-f196.google.com with SMTP id fn8so8138681igb.2 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2016 10:55:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=UuIAcPU23v7UT6CIss66obkIFfCLSBVVs9blyiCCioc=; b=nPXoy4ZPTxUcris5O3TmmaYfxdHa5OoMCcSLad3OB8rtkSHPqoa+cOTdy4/Xw4oE13 jr6uwsgKhhyf7H6N/NnMc+XZoMUnCQcNvuMgQ3KyKXOwS3Q6Mh511FH/NavT0i9x/UAq 3KS9Aked+RvQOEQFKFLV559NPI6iCz+TTk3XalndMDW+n2TasKOJh5xbpJ0augXGb30I lx8gxCAiTne7mui5FhyHDiYB38fraqYt2Rb5D/okZu5y3SSJ2R6OgQ4X+8kSBgHS2JXE AoGcfbAh3yXNbirgIXnK6f+eGikjFmCiAD6w7j74LHUybpvK8E0Hed7fsf2T8HDXl06A r+rg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=UuIAcPU23v7UT6CIss66obkIFfCLSBVVs9blyiCCioc=; b=WELwf3/Lc19u/D4fKamaKi2oYV5AH3u1268noalVNnhYl9I4DJuDpB8XDKx3BrPJTo QW/ZggPb+WS93J79ZNAylpXLsinuEwk6YdokfrEdQD84qjazo/sgBllnZmd4uV+jwaH/ lPtVS3DsThXMgRHfS72DDenY4eapd2Qk6tyMEFCmWFfuQ5MtWhsD8KEi8fvxNzScTky+ nbGE9a0f+2F9SEF/xoyonk0hGbwxVgUjQkLDoDYHNgOQ4Oic9bG9NvmDdAuksF2qh2eM G2RqQphjLBdoDFCnsKP8ST3xWokxbmFtr+nMl8MhnTGRiQMS6vXfappMnHAnf8P7xgyJ Gfjw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FWrIwrBEAwbrh0snNGVQrY+AFFcLpHKNx4wmA4L+OTt1cZfCLefEdcD07LnmUxsAqKYkya2RywRKCuZ+g== X-Received: by 10.50.49.15 with SMTP id q15mr11820388ign.73.1461779736672; Wed, 27 Apr 2016 10:55:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.79.139.4 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Apr 2016 10:55:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Google-Sender-Auth: iVrwHUuoWrokfrKCd967zao_9oU Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Pranit Bauva wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 10:57 PM, Eric Sunshine wrote: >> Each of these patches should have a single conceptual purpose. It >> seems, from the above explanation, that you're mixing and mismatching >> bits of such changes between patches. >> >> * The two new tests for --no-verbose and --no-quiet should be together >> and check that they correctly reverse --verbose and --quiet, >> respectively. >> >> * The test you describe above which ensures that --no-quiet leaves >> 'quiet' at 0 should be bundled with the change that might break that >> behavior, namely, the OPT__COUNTUP() change. > > I am planning to re-roll this. > So, I am just confirming whether I understood properly. > > * I will add the tests for check for '-q --no-quiet' instead of just > '--no-quiet' sets to 0 and '-v --no-verbose' sets to 0 in the patch > which improves test coverage which will be before the OPT_COUNTUP() > change. These tests would be even a bit more interesting if you tested "-q -q --no-quiet" and "-v -v --no-verbose", respectively, to ensure that the "no" options actually reset to 0 rather than merely decrementing by 1. I recall also suggesting adding a new test checking that "-q -q" increments the quiet count to 2 (which could be done in the patch which makes 'quiet' print as a number instead of a boolean or in the same "improve test coverage" patch). > * I will then add the test for '--no-quiet' sets to 0 in the separate > patch after OPT_COUNTUP() change. No, this and "--no-verbose sets to 0" are logically related to the OPT__COUNTUP() change, thus would be incorporated into that patch. Alternately, these two tests could just be part of "improve test coverage" patch, establishing base behavior which the OPT__COUNTUP() patch shouldn't break.