From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.6 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0296A1F545 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2023 17:48:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20221208 header.b=Zin0024N; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229911AbjGZRst (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jul 2023 13:48:49 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:43092 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229873AbjGZRsq (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jul 2023 13:48:46 -0400 Received: from mail-yb1-xb49.google.com (mail-yb1-xb49.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b49]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C365E77 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2023 10:48:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yb1-xb49.google.com with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-d13e11bb9ecso33981276.0 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2023 10:48:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20221208; t=1690393724; x=1690998524; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Jmf9auoBB3wVK6OL7dIfR6Y3b/1hoV29Iny6R8rJ28s=; b=Zin0024NW5+4uzEnGzqXiW8ss2EvUy4v6oqRRv9U4XI1BAeRUYv81G5xybijUvQTca 32gXF+M6rTlFjLpKBGDDRf4GAk3au1wgHDqx0vpmtyg92ENLTy1ebrZaM11CzVk2VCI7 tGxePkSQhqyVzKbAE5LsDE6RKR3okRjWwMoQVlyODK6CiOr9GsAtPp5RYAwBR30Wi4KJ zWs8+GoyK0R6mRQLHzRlwfC2RwKPCD5ylKBn2yBdge6r95/PEAnhXwCEIM0Xw+dczbgw i5N5RumUz5ZoqqmOVJM873f+KE5NzJdUB/FAQT1paOw8RQ3JSo2z1zXX+b4gzmNQQGfQ dYLQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1690393724; x=1690998524; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Jmf9auoBB3wVK6OL7dIfR6Y3b/1hoV29Iny6R8rJ28s=; b=U+uBgIeTMS7aBgz6r6X85Wmx45e1wpkEXmt50Sohd5r7fre3HMWJU+sXfwv9dLzoa0 f7UHbSTA+ZW8M8Y3gUzmyWLjeSBANDGmBj8pmSYfStyBNbyDPIG3qYBIDOI13QvtjXUy l/6E1sHbxyCeeNVkKciwCgM06ZGVA5/EQGtTnyw5Cvoa55JV/gWI0e6lxgUMZfrFlAV/ gZS6I97YNSmBiv67B07DCtXQjpRozMj5qLoUHPUAeoifvG9zt5d3o1pzJc0leCTXb0z9 ZukXYLVS+B+ksr5LIg4Z3d+hHnsTnk67mFG8DMSPn08HnrXG/u5YQyGcXnRADNUrlTel WfZQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ABy/qLa9isd774V4VPZYLaTHSOXI/Q09NCaez/vUIt6aJXxT818xYkWN 2BbMHSLb5uKeFNMejjNvjig8GKH5IhO+3Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APBJJlF0o6yQx3VfJzcHmutDozbgFKp6PZyfXwg14Sb8mwC+Apqya4Aii0iSBWOCfzN0wwZdBzGGnm/k3xrxBg== X-Received: from chooglen.c.googlers.com ([fda3:e722:ac3:cc00:24:72f4:c0a8:3a07]) (user=chooglen job=sendgmr) by 2002:a05:6902:1803:b0:d0b:c67:de3b with SMTP id cf3-20020a056902180300b00d0b0c67de3bmr16416ybb.13.1690393724450; Wed, 26 Jul 2023 10:48:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 10:48:42 -0700 In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 References: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] rebase: fix rewritten list for failed pick From: Glen Choo To: Phillip Wood , Phillip Wood via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org Cc: Johannes Schindelin , Junio C Hamano , Stefan Haller , Phillip Wood Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Phillip Wood writes: >> Unfortunately, it's been a while since I reviewed this patch, so forgive >> me if I'm rusty. So you're saying that this test is about checking >> invariants that we want to preserve between Git versions. > > Not really. One of the reasons why testing the implementation rather > than the user observable behavior is a bad idea is that when the > implementation is changed the test is likely to start failing or keep > passing without checking anything useful. I was trying to say that in > this case we're unlikely to change this aspect of the implementation > because it would be tricky to do so without inconveniencing users who > upgrade git while rebase is stopped for a conflict resolution and so it > is unlikely that this test will be affected by future changes to the > implementation. Ah, I see the difference. I think that's it's fair to assume that the names of the files will be fairly stable, though this series has made it clear to me that what each file does and when it is written is quite under-documented, and I wouldn't be surprised to see some of that change if we start to try to explain the inner workings to ourselves. > Yes this patch adds a test to t5407-post-rewrite-hook.sh to do that but > it only checks a failing "pick" command. The reason I think it is useful > to add these test_path_is_missing checks is that they are checking > failing "squash" and "merge" commands as well. Maybe I should just bite > the bullet see how tricky it is to extend the post-rewrite-hook test to > cover those cases as well. Yes, that would probably be a good idea. Maybe if we combined them into a test helper that checks all of "pick", "squash" and "merge", which also has the added benefit of being able to hide implementation details in case we decide to change them.