Re: [PATCH 1/1] Makefile: add prove and coverage-prove targets

> Hi Ævar,
>
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 30 2019, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, 29 Jan 2019, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, Jan 29 2019, Jeff King wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 06:56:08AM -0800, Derrick Stolee via
>> >> > GitGitGadget wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> From: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> When running the test suite for code coverage using
>> >> >> 'make coverage-test', a single test failure stops the
>> >> >> test suite from completing. This leads to significant
>> >> >> undercounting of covered blocks.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Add two new targets to the Makefile:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> * 'prove' runs the test suite using 'prove'.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> * 'coverage-prove' compiles the source using the
>> >> >>   coverage flags, then runs the test suite using
>> >> >>   'prove'.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> These targets are modeled after the 'test' and
>> >> >> 'coverage-test' targets.
>> >> >
>> >> > I think these are reasonable to have (and I personally much prefer
>> >> > "prove" to the raw "make test" output anyway).
>> >>
>> >> I wonder if anyone would mind if we removed the non-prove path.
>> >>
>> >> When I added it in 5099b99d25 ("test-lib: Adjust output to be valid TAP
>> >> format", 2010-06-24) there were still some commonly shipped OS's that
>> >> had a crappy old "prove", but now almost a decade later that's not a
>> >> practical problem, and it's installed by default with perl, and we
>> >> already depend on perl for the tests.
>> >
>> > It's not only about crappy old `prove`, it is also about requiring Perl
>> > (and remember, Perl is not really native in Git for Windows' case;
>>
>> We require perl now for testing, NO_PERL is just for the installed
>> version of git.
>
> Which is confusing, if you want to put it nicely.
>
>> If you change the various test-lib.sh and test-lib-functions.sh that
>> unconditionally uses "perl" or "$PERL_PATH" hundreds/thousands (didn't
>> take an exact count, just watched fail scroll by) tests fail.
>
> I know. Oh boy, I know.
>
> But we do not have to keep that status quo, nor do we have to make it
> worse.
>
> It would not surprise me in the least if we could accelerate our entire
> test suite by reducing our heavy reliance on scripting (including Perl) to
> the point that it really takes too little time *not* to run. (Right now,
> if you are on Windows, you better think twice before you start the test
> suite, it will easily take over 3h (!!!) to run in a regular developer
> setup. Even on a regular Mac, I would think twice before starting the run
> that blocks my machine for easily 20 minutes straight. Needless to say
> that few developers, if any, use it to validate their patches, in
> particular on Windows. Meaning: for all real purposes, the test suite is
> nearly useless on Windows.)
>
> So let's not bake *even more* Perl usage into our test suite. Thanks.
>
>> So my assumption is that anyone running the tests now has perl anyway,
>> and thus a further hard dependency on it won't hurt anything.
>
> By that token, the effort to turn many a script into a built-in for better
> performance and substantially better error checking would be totally
> nonsensical. "Because anyone running Git used those scripts anyway, so
> making them a hard dependency won't hurt anything"?
>
> I do not believe even a fraction of a second that that effort is
> nonsensical. Just like I do not believe even a fraction of a second that
> it makes sense for our test suite to rely on scripting so much. Or for us
> to make that reliance even bigger, for that matter.
>
>> > I still have a hunch that we could save on time *dramatically* by
>> > simply running through regular `make` rather than through `prove`).
>>
>> My hunch is that on the OS's where this would matter (e.g. Windows) the
>> overhead is mainly spawning the processes, and it doesn't matter if it's
>> make or perl doing the spawning, but I have nothing to back that up...
>
> I have at least the experience of several thousands runs of the test suite
> on Windows, together with a couple dozen hours spent recently *just* on
> making the CI of GitGitGadget at least bearable.
>
> So I do not quite understand why you offered a contrary opinion when you
> have nothing to back it up.
>
> I mean, I would really like to have an informed discussion with you, to
> benefit from your skills and from your experience to make the entire
> design of our test suite better (there is so much room for improvement, we
> should really be able to put together our knowledge to enhance it). It
> needs to be based on facts, of course.