Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] t/perf: add fsmonitor perf test for git diff

From: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Date: Oct 19, 2020, 21:43 UTC
Message-ID: <20201019214314.GA47659@nand.local>
In-Reply-To: <f572e226bb5e4b67cc57f8d9d4732086f01190a2.1603143316.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com>

On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 09:35:15PM +0000, Nipunn Koorapati via GitGitGadget wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> diff --git a/t/perf/p7519-fsmonitor.sh b/t/perf/p7519-fsmonitor.sh
> index 9313d4a51d..2b4803707f 100755
> --- a/t/perf/p7519-fsmonitor.sh
> +++ b/t/perf/p7519-fsmonitor.sh
> @@ -115,6 +115,13 @@ test_expect_success "setup for fsmonitor" '
>
>  	git config core.fsmonitor "$INTEGRATION_SCRIPT" &&
>  	git update-index --fsmonitor &&
> +	mkdir 1_file 10_files 100_files 1000_files 10000_files &&
> +	for i in `seq 1 10`; do touch 10_files/$i; done &&
> +	for i in `seq 1 100`; do touch 100_files/$i; done &&
> +	for i in `seq 1 1000`; do touch 1000_files/$i; done &&
> +	for i in `seq 1 10000`; do touch 10000_files/$i; done &&

I just happened to notice these while reading your range diff; git discourages the use of seq in test, instead preferring our own works-everywhere 'test_seq()'.

I was wondering how this slipped through since it should be checked automatically by t/check-non-portable-shell.pl, but that is only run from t/Makefile, not t/perf/Makefile. That probably explains how a few raw `seq`'s made it into t/perf.

In either case, test_seq() is preferred here.

Thanks, Taylor