Re: [PATCH RESEND] t4015: improve coverage of function context test
- From
René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de>
- Date
- Dec 19, 2019, 17:35 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7d454f2e-eaf6-1897-d6f6-c2e3e2a1f75f@web.de>
- In-Reply-To
- <20191218201241.GA6452@coredump.intra.peff.net>
Am 18.12.19 um 21:12 schrieb Jeff King:
Show 18 quoted lines
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 07:05:54PM +0100, René Scharfe wrote: > >> Include an actual function line in the test files to check if context is >> expanded to include the whole function, and add an ignored change before >> function context to check if that one stays hidden, while the originally >> ignored change within function context is shown. >> >> [...] >> test_expect_success 'combine --ignore-blank-lines with --function-context' ' >> - test_write_lines 1 "" 2 3 4 5 >a && >> - test_write_lines 1 2 3 4 >b && >> + test_write_lines 1 2 3 "" function 1 2 3 4 5 "" 6 7 8 9 >a && >> + test_write_lines "" 1 2 3 "" function 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >b && > > I'm a little mixed on this one. This _is_ a much better test of how the > two features should be have together. But I think the reason the > original was so short was that it was added when fixing a bug where we'd > iterate off the beginning of list of lines, which now no longer happens.
That fix, b777f3fd61 (xdiff: clamp function context indices in post-image, 2019-07-23), should no longer be necessary, but I didn't check that thoroughly. Since we still have it (and I don't intend to remove it, better keep that extra safety), it makes sense to keep the specific test.
> Maybe we should cover both cases in two separate tests?
That's easy enough to do. The hardest part is coming up with a name, but simply counting up should do the trick here.
> I'd also suggest using "a b c" for the first three lines to avoid > confusion (I don't think it's important that they're the same as the > lines inside the "function").
Good point. That turns the last line into a function line, though, which is unnecessary and confused me a bit, but I think it's a net win.
René