From: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
To: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Cc: Alejandro Sanchez <asanchez1987@gmail.com>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] am: fix --interactive HEAD tree resolution
Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 13:56:53 +0200 (CEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1905291356240.44@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190528213529.GG24650@sigill.intra.peff.net>
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-29 11:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-20 8:35 Abort (core dumped) Alejandro Sanchez
2019-05-20 10:02 ` Jeff King
2019-05-20 12:06 ` [PATCH 0/4] fix BUG() with "git am -i --resolved" Jeff King
2019-05-20 12:07 ` [PATCH 1/4] am: simplify prompt response handling Jeff King
2019-05-20 12:09 ` [PATCH 2/4] am: read interactive input from stdin Jeff King
2019-05-20 12:11 ` [PATCH 3/4] am: drop tty requirement for --interactive Jeff King
2019-05-20 12:50 ` Jeff King
2019-05-23 6:44 ` Johannes Schindelin
2019-05-24 6:27 ` Jeff King
2021-11-02 16:48 ` [PATCH 0/2] prompt.c: split up git_prompt(), read from /dev/tty, not STDIN Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-11-02 16:48 ` [PATCH 1/2] prompt.c: split up the password and non-password handling Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-11-03 11:53 ` Jeff King
2021-11-03 17:28 ` Junio C Hamano
2021-11-02 16:48 ` [PATCH 2/2] prompt.c: add and use a GIT_TEST_TERMINAL_PROMPT=true Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-11-03 11:57 ` Jeff King
2021-11-03 15:12 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-11-04 9:58 ` Jeff King
2021-11-03 17:42 ` Junio C Hamano
2021-11-04 8:48 ` Johannes Schindelin
2021-11-04 9:47 ` Jeff King
2021-11-04 9:53 ` Jeff King
2019-05-20 12:13 ` [PATCH 4/4] am: fix --interactive HEAD tree resolution Jeff King
2019-05-23 7:12 ` Johannes Schindelin
2019-05-24 6:39 ` Jeff King
2019-05-24 6:46 ` [PATCH v2 " Jeff King
2019-05-28 11:06 ` [PATCH " Johannes Schindelin
2019-05-28 21:35 ` Jeff King
2019-05-29 11:56 ` Johannes Schindelin [this message]
2019-09-26 14:20 ` Alejandro Sanchez
2019-09-26 21:11 ` Jeff King
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=nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1905291356240.44@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet \
--to=johannes.schindelin@gmx.de \
--cc=asanchez1987@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
/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).