Re: [PATCH 2/4] t7610: make tests more independent and debuggable
- From
- Richard Hansen <hansenr@google.com>
- Date
- Jan 5, 2017, 15:41 UTC
- Message-ID
- <3f0222d0-fc61-ac41-3b1d-7f506fcb1f61@scientician.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAGZ79kb9UvV6AaRLBP5OzyRtTTXarRZRZDMd_1k5n9CrgbVr5A@mail.gmail.com>
On 2017-01-04 15:27, Stefan Beller wrote:
Show 21 quoted lines
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Richard Hansen <hansenr@google.com> wrote:
>> If a test fails it might leave the repository in a strange state. Add
>> 'git reset --hard' at the beginning of each test to increase the odds
>> of passing when an earlier test fails.
>
> So each test is cleaning up the previous test, which *may* confuse
> a reader ("how is the reset --hard relevant for this test? Oooh it's
> just a cleanup").
>
> We could put it another way by having each test itself make clean
> up after itself via
>
> test_when_finished "git reset --hard" &&
> ..
>
> at the beginning of each test.
> This would produce the same order of operations, i.e. a
> reset run between each test, but semantically tells the reader
> that the reset is part of the current test cleaning up after itself,
> as "reset" is operation for this particular test to cleanup.
> Does that make sense?I like that idea; thanks for the suggestion. I'll cook up a reroll.
Show 10 quoted lines
>> >> Also use test-specific branches to avoid interfering with later tests >> and to make the tests easier to debug. > > That sounds great! > Though in the code I only spot one occurrence for > > + git checkout -b test$test_count branch1 && > > so maybe that could be part of the first patch in the series?
There are two; the other is buried in the change for the 'mergetool on file in parent dir' test.
Thanks for the review, Richard
> > Thanks, > Stefan