Re: [PATCH 1/9] t/: new helper for tests that pass with ort but fail with recursive

> On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 3:49 AM Đoàn Trần Công Danh
> <congdanhqx@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 2020-10-23 16:01:16+0000, Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > +test_expect_merge_algorithm () {
> > > +     status_for_recursive=$1
> > > +     shift
> > > +     status_for_ort=$1
> > > +     shift
> > > +
> > > +     if test "$GIT_TEST_MERGE_ALGORITHM" = ort
> > > +     then
> > > +             test_expect_${status_for_ort} "$@"
> > > +     else
> > > +             test_expect_${status_for_recursive} "$@"
> > > -test_expect_failure 'check symlink modify/modify' '
> > > +test_expect_merge_algorithm failure success 'check symlink modify/modify' '
> >
> > I find this series of "failure success" hard to decode without
> > understanding what it would be, then I need to keep rememberring which
> > status is corresponding with with algorithm.
> >
> > Perhaps this patch is a bit easier to read. This is largely based on
> > your patch. (I haven't read other patches, yet).
> >
> > What do you think?
> 
> It is easier to read and I think something along these lines would
> make a lot of sense if this weren't a transient change (the idea is to
> eventually drop the recursive backend in favor of ort, and then these
> can all switch to just using test_expect_success).  Maybe it still
> makes sense to make further changes here anyway, but if we do go this
> route, there are 1-2 things we can/should change:
> 
> First, while a lot of my contributions aren't that important, and the

> new test_expect_* function certainly falls in that category, one of
> the driving goals behind a new merge algorithm was fixing up edge and
> corner cases that were just too problematic in the recursive backend.
> Thus, the patch where I get to flip the test expectation is one that I
> care about more than most out of the (I'm guessing on this number)

> 100+ patches that will be part of this new merge algorithm.  Having
> you take over ownership of that patch thus isn't right; we should
> instead keep my original patch and apply your suggested changes on top
> (or have a patch from you introducing a new function first, and then
> have a patch from me using it to flip test expectations on top).

> Second, I think that lines like
>     test_expect_merge_success recursive=failure ...
> read like a contradiction and are also confusing.  I think it'd be
> better if it read something like
>     test_expect_merge recursive=failure ort=success ...
> or something along those lines.