Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] test-read-cache: set up repo after git directory
- From
Lessley Dennington <lessleydennington@gmail.com>
- Date
- Nov 29, 2021, 23:01 UTC
- Message-ID
- <eef31466-e574-1f0e-91c5-efaa78ad8880@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqtug12yga.fsf@gitster.g>
On 11/24/21 10:36 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 33 quoted lines
> Lessley Dennington <lessleydennington@gmail.com> writes: > >> On 11/23/21 3:42 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> "Lessley Dennington via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> >>> writes: >>> >>>> From: Lessley Dennington <lessleydennington@gmail.com> >>>> >>>> Move repo setup to occur after git directory is set up. This will ensure >>>> enabling the sparse index for `diff` (and guarding against the nongit >>>> scenario) will not cause tests to start failing, since that change will include >>>> adding a check to prepare_repo_settings() with the new BUG. > >>> This looks obviously the right thing to do. Would anything break >>> because of the "wrong" ordering of events in the original code? >>> IOW, can this "bugfix" be protected with a new test against >>> regression? >>> >> Yep! Tests 2, 3, 28, and 34 in t1092-sparse-checkout-compatibility.sh >> will fail without this change. > > I do not understand. When 1/4 and 2/4 are applied, no tests in > t1092 fail for me. > > I think the presentation order of this series is not reviewer > friendly; "the new BUG" is introduced in a separate step and > obscures the reason why this step is needed. It is better than > adding "the new BUG" first and let some tests fail and then fix the > breakage the series caused in later steps, though. > > > >
What I meant was that those tests fail with the first patch in the series. Once this patch is applied they no longer fail.
That being said, I agree with this feedback - I have reorganized the changes for v5 in a way in which I hope will make more sense and will improve the reviewer experience.
Lessley