Re: [PATCH 1/2] tests: eliminate unnecessary setup test assertions

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: May 6, 2011, 22:29 UTC
Message-ID: <20110506222951.GA24474@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <7voc3fxy6b.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 03:27:08PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > Two minor complaints on git-blame; maybe somebody can point out
> > something clever I've missed.
> 
> >   1. blame's "-L" understands patterns already.
> 
> Teaching blame to take multiple -L options has been one of many
> longstanding todo item for me.  Someday.

I think multiple -L is not quite enough. I want a single "-L" that matches every instance of a pattern, like:

  -L "/ ()/,+0"

Show 11 quoted lines

> >   2. Parsing the human-readable output blame output sucks. But parsing
> >      --porcelain is annoyingly complex for quick-and-dirty things like
> >      this. It doesn't repeat the commit information per-line.
> 
> Non-repetition was quite deliberate, as the reader was expected to have
> memory proportional to the number of lines in the range, but I agree it is
> not friendly for quick and dirty hack.
> 
> You should be able to add a command line option that disables the early
> return at the beginning of emit_one_suspect_detail() with a 5-6 lines of
> patch.

I tried that, and it is slightly more involved. You also need to break a multi-line run of lines that blame to a single suspect into its constituent lines. I am 75% of the way to such a patch if you are interested. It's not a lot of code, but it takes some refactoring of emit_porcelain.

-Peff