Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] test-lib-functions: fix test_subcommand_inexact
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Mar 24, 2022, 20:48 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqtubnf568.fsf@gitster.g>
- In-Reply-To
- <ed67b7489719a01c88d7a6765e7499c1157da32e.1648146897.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
"Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
Show 29 quoted lines
> From: Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@github.com> > > The implementation of test_subcommand_inexact() was originally > introduced in e4d0c11c0 (repack: respect kept objects with '--write-midx > -b', 2021-12-20) with the intention to allow finding a subcommand based > on an initial set of arguments. The inexactness was intended as a way to > allow flexible options beyond that initial set, as opposed to > test_subcommand() which requires that the full list of options is > provided in its entirety. > > The implementation began by copying test_subcommand() and replaced the > repeated argument 'printf' statement to append ".*" instead of "," to > each argument. This has a few drawbacks: > > 1. Most importantly, this repeats the use of ".*" within 'expr', so the > inexact match is even more flexible than expected. It allows the list > of arguments to exist as a subsequence (with any other items included > between those arguments). > > 2. The line 'expr="$(expr%,}"' that previously removed a trailing comma > now no longer does anything, since the string ends with ".*". > > Both of these issues are fixed by keeping the addition of the comma in > the printf statement, then adding ".*" after stripping out the trailing > comma. > > All existing tests continue to pass with this change. There was one > instance from t7700-repack.sh that was taking advantage of this > flexibility, but it was removed in the previous change.
Of course all existing tests continue to pass, as we no longer have any user of test_subcommand_inexact after the previous step ;-).
Among
(1) doing nothing, (2) removing, and (3) clarifying the implementation,
my preference would be 2 > 1 > 3. If we add
(4) clarify the implementation and document what kind of inexactness we
tolerate with an updated comment"to the mix, that would come before all 3 others, though.
Perhaps squash something like this in?
t/test-lib-functions.sh | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git i/t/test-lib-functions.sh w/t/test-lib-functions.sh index 0f439c99d6..6f6afae847 100644 --- i/t/test-lib-functions.sh +++ w/t/test-lib-functions.sh @@ -1789,8 +1789,8 @@ test_subcommand () { } # Check that the given command was invoked as part of the -# trace2-format trace on stdin, but without an exact set of -# arguments. +# trace2-format trace on stdin, but only require that the +# initial arguments are given as specified. # # test_subcommand [!] <command> <args>... < <trace> #