Re: [PATCH] t5310-pack-bitmaps: fix bogus 'pack-objects to file can use bitmap' test

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Aug 21, 2018, 21:52 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqh8jn75g2.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180819214334.GA2626@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

Show 16 quoted lines

>> > If we assume that "expect" is first (which is our convention but not
>> > necessarily guaranteed), then I think the best logic is something like:
>> > 
>> >   if $1 is empty; then
>> >     bug in the test script
>> >   elif test_cmp_allow_empty "$@"
>> >     test failure
>> > 
>> > We do not need to check $2 at all. An empty one is either irrelevant (if
>> > the expectation is empty), or a test failure (because it would not match
>> > the non-empty $1).
>> 
>> ... this is indeed a better solution. I written out the cases for
>> updated test_cmp to straighten out my thinking:
>
> I'd be OK pursuing either this line, or what you showed originally.

As I do find [1] to be a real concern, I'd prefer not to flag empty input to test_cmp as special. But if we _were_ to do something, I agree that "$2 can be anything---that is the output from the potentially buggy program we are testing" is the right attitude to take.

[Footnote]

*1* https://public-inbox.org/git/CAM0VKjkT7fBJRie_3f4B13BHT9hp9MxRhuX5r1sogh2x7KQzbg@mail.gmail.com/