From: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 06 May 2025 19:43:54 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/13] pack-objects: introduce GIT_TEST_PACK_PATH_WALK
Message-ID: <7a919f7e-1e3e-4c30-9f57-5a536dfb3697@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <aBVVwCZ0NZT3KLB/@nand.local>

On 5/2/25 7:31 PM, Taylor Blau wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 03:22:41PM +0000, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote:
>> From: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>
>>
>> There are many tests that validate whether 'git pack-objects' works as
>> expected. Instead of duplicating these tests, add a new test environment
>> variable, GIT_TEST_PACK_PATH_WALK, that implies --path-walk by default
>> when specified.
> 
> I normally dislike adding new GIT_TEST_* environment variables, because
> I don't think we (myself included) are great about remembering to get
> rid of them. But in this case I think it does make sense to add one.
> 
>> This was useful in testing the implementation of the --path-walk
>> implementation, especially in conjunction with test such as:
> 
> I am not quite following... this sentence sets up a list of tests which
> I was expecting to show some demonstration of how they uniquely
> exercised the path-walk feature. But instead it looks like it describes
> tests that are sensitive to object ordering within packs and thus had to
> have the new GIT_TEST_PACK_PATH_WALK variable unset/set to zero.
I guess I mean that having the test variable helped gain confidence in
the feature since the only test failures that occurred were due to
cases where the tests relied too much on specifics of the object walk.

I'll think of better ways to say this.

Thanks,
-Stolee