From: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 07:10:26 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/27] blame tests: simplify userdiff driver test
Message-ID: <200aecc0-4bfa-0655-da4d-45df7408d5ff@kdbg.org>
In-Reply-To: <87eehfa36w.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com>

Am 17.02.21 um 02:33 schrieb Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason:
> 
> On Mon, Feb 15 2021, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> 
>> Am 15.02.21 um 16:44 schrieb Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason:
>>> Simplify the test added in 9466e3809d (blame: enable funcname blaming
>>> with userdiff driver, 2020-11-01) to use the --author support recently
>>> added in 999cfc4f45 (test-lib functions: add --author support to
>>> test_commit, 2021-01-12).
>>> We also did not need the full fortran-external-function content,
>>> let's
>>> cut it down to just the important parts, and further modify it to
>>> demonstrate that the fortran-specific userdiff function is in effect
>>> by adding "WRONG" lines surrounding the "RIGHT" one.
>>> The test also left behind a .gitattributes files, let's clean it up
>>> with "test_when_finished".
>>> Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>>    t/annotate-tests.sh | 36 +++++++++++++++---------------------
>>>    1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>>> diff --git a/t/annotate-tests.sh b/t/annotate-tests.sh
>>> index 04a2c58594..4a86e0f349 100644
>>> --- a/t/annotate-tests.sh
>>> +++ b/t/annotate-tests.sh
>>> @@ -479,32 +479,26 @@ test_expect_success 'blame -L ^:RE (absolute: end-of-file)' '
>>>    	check_count -f hello.c -L$n -L^:ma.. F 4 G 1 H 1
>>>    '
>>>    -test_expect_success 'setup -L :funcname with userdiff driver' '
>>> -	echo "fortran-* diff=fortran" >.gitattributes &&
>>> -	fortran_file=fortran-external-function &&
>>> -	cat >$fortran_file <<-\EOF &&
>>> +test_expect_success 'blame -L :funcname with userdiff driver' '
>>> +	cat >file.template <<-\EOF &&
>>> +	def WRONG begin end
>>>    	function RIGHT(a, b) result(c)
>>> +	int WRONG(void) {}
>>>      	integer, intent(in) :: ChangeMe
>>> -	integer, intent(in) :: b
>>> -	integer, intent(out) :: c
>>> -
>>> -	c = a+b
>>> -
>>> -	end function RIGHT
>>>    	EOF
>>> -	git add "$fortran_file" &&
>>> -	GIT_AUTHOR_NAME="A" GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL="A@test.git" \
>>> -	git commit -m "add fortran file" &&
>>> -	sed -e "s/ChangeMe/IWasChanged/" <"$fortran_file" >"$fortran_file".tmp &&
>>> -	mv "$fortran_file".tmp "$fortran_file" &&
>>> -	git add "$fortran_file" &&
>>> -	GIT_AUTHOR_NAME="B" GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL="B@test.git" \
>>> -	git commit -m "change fortran file"
>>> -'
>>>    -test_expect_success 'blame -L :funcname with userdiff driver' '
>>> -	check_count -f fortran-external-function -L:RIGHT A 7 B 1
>>> +	fortran_file=file.f03 &&
>>> +	test_when_finished "rm .gitattributes" &&
>>> +	echo "$fortran_file diff=fortran" >.gitattributes &&
>>> +
>>> +	test_commit --author "A <A@test.git>" \
>>> +		"add" $fortran_file \
>>> +		"$(cat file.template)" &&
>>> +	test_commit --author "B <B@test.git>" \
>>> +		"change" $fortran_file \
>>> +		"$(cat file.template | sed -e s/ChangeMe/IWasChanged/)" &&
>>> +	check_count -f $fortran_file -L:RIGHT A 3 B 1
>>>    '
>>>      test_expect_success 'setup incremental' '
>>>
>>
>> I don't get the point. What do you need the tokens "WRONG" for when
>> they are not checked anywhere? Instead of adding unrelated lines (that
>> do not even look like Fortran), couldn't you just not remove some of
>> the others? In particular, the last one that contains "RIGHT" as well
>> may be useful to keep in order to show that the code is not confused
>> by it.
> 
> Isn't the point of the test to assert that we're using a userdiff driver
> over the built-in xdiff rules here?
> 
> We can imagine that a change to its default heuristics would be to find
> the first non-whitespace line, but it jumping over non-whitespace lines
> in search of a fortran-looking line doesn't seem like it would ever
> happen. Hence the WRONG lines.

Fair enough. A justification along these lines either as comment or in 
the commit message would have helped; the existing text in the commit 
message was not sufficient to get the point across. I was distracted by 
the capitalized "WRONG" token because we use a capitalized "RIGHT" token 
and check for it, so I expected that we also should check for "WRONG". 
Wouldn't it then just be sufficient to remove the blank lines from the 
exiting Fortran content?

>> Please place "$fortran_file" in dquotes on the check_count line.

I just noticed that there are more unquoted expansions above that line. 
(I'm just mentioning it for completeness.)

-- Hannes