Re: [PATCH] t3701: two subtests are fixed
- From
Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
- Date
- Jun 18, 2022, 11:55 UTC
- Message-ID
- <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2206181342200.349@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>
- In-Reply-To
- <165537087609.19905.821171947957640468.git@grubix.eu>
Hi Michael,
On Thu, 16 Jun 2022, Michael J Gruber wrote:
Show 15 quoted lines
> Johannes Schindelin venit, vidit, dixit 2022-06-15 16:50:40:
>
> > On Tue, 14 Jun 2022, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> >
> > > 0527ccb1b5 ("add -i: default to the built-in implementation", 2021-11-30)
> > > switched to the implementation which fixed to subtest. Mark them as
> > > expect_success now.
> >
> > Good catch!
>
> I'm no list regular anymore, but still a "next+ regular". While
> experimenting with my own patch I noticed something got fixed
> unexpectedly. That goes to show that these unexpected successes
> (from expect_failure) go unnoticed too easily. I had missed this on my
> regular rebuilds.Makes sense.
Show 40 quoted lines
> > However... that commit specifically contains this change: > > > > diff --git a/ci/run-build-and-tests.sh b/ci/run-build-and-tests.sh > > index cc62616d806..660ebe8d108 100755 > > --- a/ci/run-build-and-tests.sh > > +++ b/ci/run-build-and-tests.sh > > @@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ linux-gcc) > > export GIT_TEST_COMMIT_GRAPH_CHANGED_PATHS=1 > > export GIT_TEST_MULTI_PACK_INDEX=1 > > export GIT_TEST_MULTI_PACK_INDEX_WRITE_BITMAP=1 > > - export GIT_TEST_ADD_I_USE_BUILTIN=1 > > + export GIT_TEST_ADD_I_USE_BUILTIN=0 > > export GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME=master > > export GIT_TEST_WRITE_REV_INDEX=1 > > export GIT_TEST_CHECKOUT_WORKERS=2 > > > > The intention is to have t3701 be run with the non-built-in version of > > `git add -i` in the `linux-gcc` job, and I am surprised that those two > > tests do not fail for you in that case. > > > > Did you run this through the CI builds? > > That's why I mentioned "no list regular" - I didn't know about that knob > nor the intention to have the test suite run with either implementation > (rather than switching to the new one for good). > > I do local builds, usually with > > ``` > DEVELOPER=1 (which I had to disable during the bisect run; gcc12...) > DEFAULT_TEST_TARGET=prove > GIT_PROVE_OPTS=--jobs 4 > GIT_TEST_OPTS=--root=/dev/shm/t --chain-lint > SHELL_PATH=/bin/dash > SKIP_DASHED_BUILT_INS=y > ``` > > in config.mak. Nothing else strikes me as potentially relevant. > > Ævar noticed this and has a better version of my patch, I think.
So you did not find it utterly rude and presumptuous that somebody sent a new iteration of your patch without even so much as consulting with you whether you're okay with this? I salute your forbearance, then.
Besides, it is not really a better version of your patch. That would have been:
-- snip --
diff --git a/t/t3701-add-interactive.sh b/t/t3701-add-interactive.sh index 94537a6b40a..6d1032fe8ae 100755 --- a/t/t3701-add-interactive.sh +++ b/t/t3701-add-interactive.sh @@ -538,7 +538,9 @@ test_expect_success 'split hunk "add -p (edit)"' ' ! grep "^+15" actual ' -test_expect_failure 'split hunk "add -p (no, yes, edit)"' ' +test_lazy_prereq BUILTIN_ADD_I 'test_bool_env GIT_TEST_ADD_I_USE_BUILTIN true' + +test_expect_success BUILTIN_ADD_I 'split hunk "add -p (no, yes, edit)"' ' test_write_lines 5 10 20 21 30 31 40 50 60 >test && git reset && # test sequence is s(plit), n(o), y(es), e(dit) @@ -562,7 +564,7 @@ test_expect_success 'split hunk with incomplete line at end' ' test_must_fail git grep --cached before ' -test_expect_failure 'edit, adding lines to the first hunk' ' +test_expect_failure BUILTIN_ADD_I 'edit, adding lines to the first hunk' ' test_write_lines 10 11 20 30 40 50 51 60 >test && git reset && tr _ " " >patch <<-EOF && -- snap -- As you can see, this is _actually_ building on your work rather than replacing it. But since that replacement made it into -rc1, I will stop spending brain cycles on it. Thank you for your contribution, I am glad that you keep sending patches to the Git mailing list! Dscho