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: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C2841F403 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2022 17:08:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="TcwSw5h5"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229494AbiJGRIy (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Oct 2022 13:08:54 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:49626 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229525AbiJGRIw (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Oct 2022 13:08:52 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (pb-smtp1.pobox.com [64.147.108.70]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C5C1A87AB for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2022 10:08:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44C2515B917; Fri, 7 Oct 2022 13:08:49 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=WTPZ+kRthaq56vVRLoezqjYdwU/cpznPvyX0X5 bLuuU=; b=TcwSw5h5LTOBtJ8zNn7ktIUt270XPHbuix2VDhl5NgeKimsUftBUyG soN2T/HccZCaz6GnTy6dTuFTVs7YPmBQnQoCOGhCAhxZNyZQ/ipMzQDNEb8mdLZk nlNIEM1m//EURxKqdOXAL0ShHz9MFndR/F9EMhzqDhjyyAPwSrkTI= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AEF015B916; Fri, 7 Oct 2022 13:08:49 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.83.5.33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9A74D15B915; Fri, 7 Oct 2022 13:08:48 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Phillip Wood Cc: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , Phillip Wood via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Derrick Stolee Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] [RFC] tests: add test_todo() for known failures References: <221006.86v8owr986.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> <8df2260c-7a35-5b50-7273-fbd9894a614c@dunelm.org.uk> Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2022 10:08:47 -0700 In-Reply-To: <8df2260c-7a35-5b50-7273-fbd9894a614c@dunelm.org.uk> (Phillip Wood's message of "Fri, 7 Oct 2022 14:26:59 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: B5A376DE-4662-11ED-A7EE-2AEEC5D8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Phillip Wood writes: > I think there is a question of whether we need a new toplevel > test_expect_todo - why would we add it if we can just reuse > test_expect_success? That way when a test failure is fixed all that > needs to be done is to remove the test_todo calls. Yup, that is one of the reasons why I favor test_todo inside the normal test_expect_success. A patch that fixes a breakage would come with a change to the tests that flips test_expect_failure to test_expect_success often had the step that were expected to fail outside the post context and did not make it immediately obvious what was fixed, and use of a more focused test_todo would make it more clear. Unless we gain a clear advantage by using a different top-level (e.g. some of the limitations like "not in a subshell" can be lifted?), I do not think we want to add one.