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-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,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B712A1F66F for ; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 19:53:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727305AbgKSTub (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Nov 2020 14:50:31 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:53209 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727276AbgKSTub (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Nov 2020 14:50:31 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5B75FFBA6; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 14:50:30 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=YvfnhtXb+g28Lird7bgcukcH+wo=; b=lRt6rg bldS5JqTSSCHjqXeRIx7FatzBYe0xx6G4qfMnf0vW2SdeKwspuKFJY+R+FwoHx/P opSryaus7jEIfYsu5I8CZZWlzKtLAxtJYdoymT0oDQQOCnucqycPjt5WR2YNxcdr Rf8rnf2aZsYUXq8OlrR9ebsOYnJPi3VGFdKTI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=Pdv3vkofDtDJr0C7Rixy955jXk/nzRE0 vaoquNwbSdcf5VfveobYn4NYRTKBF8n6iGYBb/8mYdxf+TGKmuXIwsz01x2Cdro7 OPiC2SR9m9cQgon+6g8SrZXSweHgMzD++s1p2dHbWLfm5tTnJPpwuNytGLEa+ps2 vSLmOT+6iC4= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AED0CFFBA5; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 14:50:30 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.75.7.245]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 068A0FFBA3; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 14:50:27 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: SZEDER =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor?= , git@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] tests: make sure nested lazy prereqs work reliably References: <20201118190414.32616-1-szeder.dev@gmail.com> <20201119155824.GB25426@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20201119175608.GA132922@coredump.intra.peff.net> Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 11:50:26 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20201119175608.GA132922@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Thu, 19 Nov 2020 12:56:08 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 79235858-2AA0-11EB-A5C8-D609E328BF65-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > I took a look at converting some of the existing tests. This seems to > work. It's a bit longer to read, perhaps, but I kind of like that the > expected outcome is all laid out. It also pollutes the test output less > (e.g., if you wanted to count up skipped tests in the whole suite, you'd > get a bunch of noise from t0000 for these uninteresting skips). > > Thoughts? I think this is something I'd do on top of your patch. Yes, it looks nice as the expectation is expressed much clearly.