From: John Cai Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2024 16:25:13 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/12] t3210: move to t0602 Message-ID: <31D22360-5F20-43BD-B8FC-0BA2BC3A2EA9@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Hi Patrick, On 18 Jan 2024, at 6:32, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 04:40:10PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> "John Cai via GitGitGadget" writes: >> >>> From: John Cai >>> >>> Move t3210 to t0602, since these tests are reffiles specific in that >>> they modify loose refs manually. This is part of the effort to >>> categorize these tests together based on the ref backend they test. When >>> we upstream the reftable backend, we can add more tests to t06xx. This >>> way, all tests that test specific ref backend behavior will be grouped >>> together. >> >> So, ... is the idea to have (1) majority of ref tests, against which >> all backends ought to behave the same way, will be written in >> backend agnostic way (e.g., we have seen some patches to stop >> touching the filesystem .git/refs/ hierarchy manually), and (2) some >> backend specific tests will be grouped in a small number of test >> script files for each backend and they all will use t6xx numbrs? >> >> OK. Sounds like a good plan to me. > > Yes, that's the plan. The backend specific tests will be free to also > exercise filesystem-level behaviour in order to pin down that things > work as expected. But once their behaviour is nailed down all other > generic tests should refrain from doing that to the best extent possible > and instead use Git commands to do their thing. > >>> Signed-off-by: John Cai >>> --- >>> t/{t3210-pack-refs.sh => t0602-reffiles-pack-refs.sh} | 0 >>> 1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >>> rename t/{t3210-pack-refs.sh => t0602-reffiles-pack-refs.sh} (100%) > > Is there a reason why you picked t0602 instead of the not-yet-taken > t0601? If it's only because I use t0601 in my reftable integration > branch then I'd like us to pick t0601 here instead to avoid a weird gap. > I'll adapt accordingly and rename the reftable tests to have a t061x > prefix in that case so that they are nicely grouped together. Yes if I remember correctly, that's the reason. I can move this to t0601 then, thanks. > > Patrick