Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] clean up some code around editors

From: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Date: Aug 12, 2025, 18:13 UTC
Message-ID: <CAPig+cQMa32G0pqi1UU6hqRAB5709Zcif0pd5uWifqB8d9o6rg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq1ppgv3wg.fsf@gitster.g>

On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 1:36 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 23 quoted lines

> Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes:
> > To catch it locally, you can run:
> >     make test-lint-shell-syntax
> > in the "t" directory. Alternatively, `make test-lint`, `make test` or
> > `make prove` would also have caught the problem.
>
> "make test" is a bit too heavy-weight to use as an initial sanity
> check for tests that are being newly developed, and I am wondering
> if something like this can be added as a first-line sanity checking
> tool.  The idea is a simple "make" to build, while DEVELOPER=Yes is
> set, would trigger the common linting any developer who is working
> on new things needs to pay attention to.
>
>  ifdef DEVELOPER
>  include config.mak.dev
> +all:: check-developer
>  endif
>
> +check-developer: check-docs check-tests check-builtins check-headers
>
> +.PHONY: check-tests
> +check-tests:
> +       $(MAKE) -C t/ test-lint

Not a bad idea, though I don't think we need to hide the target behind DEVELOPER.

The "first-line sanity checking" phrasing you used above suggested the name "make check-sanity" to me as being more meaningful and obvious than "make check-developer". However, upon reflection, "sanity" is perhaps too generic, thus might not convey that these checks are for code newly-developed (or changed) by developers, so perhaps "make check-developer" is indeed the better name choice.