Re: [PATCH] t/perf: use 'test_file_size' in more places

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Nov 22, 2024, 08:28 UTC
Message-ID: <20241122082805.GC1179306@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <50c1368630684f235548d2e9a68d4de3745b5fe6.1732220875.git.me@ttaylorr.com>

On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 03:29:24PM -0500, Taylor Blau wrote:

> The perf test suite prefers to use test_file_size over 'wc -c' when
> inside of a test_size block. One advantage is that accidentally writign
> "wc -c file" (instead of "wc -c <file") does not inadvertently break the
> tests (since the former will include the filename in the output of wc).

The use of "prefers" here confused me, because I did not think we used test_file_size at all yet. I am certainly OK with arguing that we should, but I was just confused on first read. Maybe you mean "s/perf//"?

Also, s/writign/writing/.

> I noticed while reviewing Stolee's --full-name-hash series that he added
> new test_size tests that use the test_file_size helper instead of "wc
> -c". I thought it would be good to clean up the existing uses of "wc -c"
> in the perf suite as a result, which is what this patch does.

Perhaps we should also touch the one in t/perf/README, which points people using test_size to using "wc -c" in the first place?

-Peff