Re: [GSoC PATCH v10 2/5] repo: add the field references.format

From: Lucas Seiki Oshiro <lucasseikioshiro@gmail.com>
Date: Aug 15, 2025, 19:12 UTC
Message-ID: <5F0AC8F9-8B0A-457E-80D9-0AAC07D6CB41@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqfrdsqvi1.fsf@gitster.g>

Show 6 quoted lines

> I know it is tempting to write a helper function like this that
> looks overly generic, but I've seen that we end up either tests that
> are too hard to modify (because such helpers are not flexible enough)
> or we end up adding more helpers to cover different cases, and
> either case the presense of the helper does not help the resulting
> tests easier to read or modify.

I understand... But in this case, most of the tests would look almost the same and there will be a lot of code duplication, since I'm testing both output formats (not in this patch, but in 5/5).

> If this were "test repo-info for ref.format only" that takes a
> single parameter (format), that might have been more palatable, but
> I'll withhold my judgement until we have tests to handle more keys
> in later steps.

I have already done objects.format here, which follows the same structure.

> Also, unless we capture both standard output (in actual) and
> standard error (in actual_err) from the command being tested, and
> instead are interested in testing only what comes out of the error
> stream, it is more common to use the usual "expect vs actual".

Ok. Should I send a v11 or is it ok to keep it like this by now?

Thanks!