# [PATCH] Avoid duplicate test number t7609 7 messages from 2010-12-13 to 2010-12-13. Participants: Johannes Sixt, Michael J Gruber, Jeff King, Junio C Hamano. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/26037 ## Johannes Sixt, 2010-12-13 10:14 Subject: [PATCH] Avoid duplicate test number t7609 Message-ID: <4D05F1EA.9000403@viscovery.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/4D05F1EA.9000403%40viscovery.net ``` From: Johannes Sixt Signed-off-by: Johannes Sixt --- t/{t7609-merge-abort.sh => t7611-merge-abort.sh} | 0 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) rename t/{t7609-merge-abort.sh => t7611-merge-abort.sh} (100%) diff --git a/t/t7609-merge-abort.sh b/t/t7611-merge-abort.sh similarity index 100% rename from t/t7609-merge-abort.sh rename to t/t7611-merge-abort.sh -- 1.7.3.3.1800.g26f22 ``` ## Michael J Gruber, 2010-12-13 16:12 Subject: [PATCH/RFC] t800?-blame.sh: retitle uniquely Message-ID: <52f777e518583955f78b71e96b3c8ff53d25b608.1292256498.git.git@drmicha.warpmail.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/52f777e518583955f78b71e96b3c8ff53d25b608.1292256498.git.git%40drmicha.warpmail.net In-Reply-To: <4D05F1EA.9000403@viscovery.net> ``` Currently we have three test files matching t800?-blame.sh. Rename the latter two to make it easier to spot where additions would go. Signed-off-by: Michael J Gruber --- On a related note to J6t's patch, how's the stance on unique titles? Unique numbers are important for partial test runs, of course, but unique titles help finding you way through the test. There are more than the blame.sh ones. t/{t8003-blame.sh => t8003-blame-corner-cases.sh} | 0 ...8004-blame.sh => t8004-blame-with-conflicts.sh} | 0 2 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) rename t/{t8003-blame.sh => t8003-blame-corner-cases.sh} (100%) rename t/{t8004-blame.sh => t8004-blame-with-conflicts.sh} (100%) diff --git a/t/t8003-blame.sh b/t/t8003-blame-corner-cases.sh similarity index 100% rename from t/t8003-blame.sh rename to t/t8003-blame-corner-cases.sh diff --git a/t/t8004-blame.sh b/t/t8004-blame-with-conflicts.sh similarity index 100% rename from t/t8004-blame.sh rename to t/t8004-blame-with-conflicts.sh -- 1.7.3.3.738.g018bc ``` ## Jeff King, 2010-12-13 17:07 Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] t800?-blame.sh: retitle uniquely Message-ID: <20101213170734.GA24736@sigill.intra.peff.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20101213170734.GA24736%40sigill.intra.peff.net In-Reply-To: <52f777e518583955f78b71e96b3c8ff53d25b608.1292256498.git.git@drmicha.warpmail.net> ``` On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 05:12:29PM +0100, Michael J Gruber wrote: > On a related note to J6t's patch, how's the stance on unique titles? > Unique numbers are important for partial test runs, of course, > but unique titles help finding you way through the test. > There are more than the blame.sh ones. I don't think it is a big deal, but I did just 5 minutes ago get annoyed at: t7500-commit.sh t7501-commit.sh t7502-commit.sh t7509-commit.sh Speaking of minor test issues, we should probably also do this: -- >8 -- Subject: [PATCH] tests: flip executable bit on t9158 All tests are supposed to be executable. Signed-off-by: Jeff King --- 0 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) mode change 100644 => 100755 t/t9158-git-svn-mergeinfo.sh diff --git a/t/t9158-git-svn-mergeinfo.sh b/t/t9158-git-svn-mergeinfo.sh old mode 100644 new mode 100755 -- 1.7.3.3.784.gccc31.dirty ``` ## Jeff King, 2010-12-13 17:22 Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] t800?-blame.sh: retitle uniquely Message-ID: <20101213172238.GA16136@sigill.intra.peff.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20101213172238.GA16136%40sigill.intra.peff.net In-Reply-To: <20101213170734.GA24736@sigill.intra.peff.net> ``` On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 12:07:34PM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > Speaking of minor test issues, we should probably also do this: > > -- >8 -- > Subject: [PATCH] tests: flip executable bit on t9158 BTW, I will plug my test-lint patch once again, which caught both this and the duplicate test number mentioned earlier. -- >8 -- Subject: [PATCH] tests: add some script lint checks There are some common but minor errors we tend to make in writing test scripts: 1. Scripts are left non-executable. This is not usually noticed immediately because "make test" does not need the bit, but it is a matter of git policy to make them executable (and is a slight convenience when running individual scripts). 2. Two scripts are allocated the same number. Usually this happens on separate branches, and the problem only comes about during a merge. But since there is no textual conflict, the merger would have to be very observant to notice. This is also a minor error, but can make GIT_SKIP_TESTS ambiguous. This patch introduces a "test-lint" target which checks both. It is not invoked by default. You can invoke it as "make test-lint", or you can make it a prerequisite of running the tests by specifying "TEST_LINT = test-lint" in your config.mak or on the command line. Signed-off-by: Jeff King --- t/Makefile | 16 ++++++++++++++-- 1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/t/Makefile b/t/Makefile index 73c6ec4..47cbeb6 100644 --- a/t/Makefile +++ b/t/Makefile @@ -23,10 +23,10 @@ TGITWEB = $(wildcard t95[0-9][0-9]-*.sh) all: $(DEFAULT_TEST_TARGET) -test: pre-clean +test: pre-clean $(TEST_LINT) $(MAKE) aggregate-results-and-cleanup -prove: pre-clean +prove: pre-clean $(TEST_LINT) @echo "*** prove ***"; GIT_CONFIG=.git/config $(PROVE) --exec '$(SHELL_PATH_SQ)' $(GIT_PROVE_OPTS) $(T) :: $(GIT_TEST_OPTS) $(MAKE) clean @@ -41,6 +41,18 @@ clean: $(RM) -r valgrind/bin $(RM) .prove +test-lint: test-lint-duplicates test-lint-executable + +test-lint-duplicates: + @dups=`echo $(T) | tr ' ' '\n' | sed 's/-.*//' | sort | uniq -d` && \ + test -z "$$dups" || { \ + echo >&2 "duplicate test numbers:" $$dups; exit 1; } + +test-lint-executable: + @bad=`for i in $(T); do test -x "$$i" || echo $$i; done` && \ + test -z "$$bad" || { \ + echo >&2 "non-executable tests:" $$bad; exit 1; } + aggregate-results-and-cleanup: $(T) $(MAKE) aggregate-results $(MAKE) clean -- 1.7.3.3.784.gccc31.dirty ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2010-12-13 19:38 Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] t800?-blame.sh: retitle uniquely Message-ID: <7vk4jdzcng.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/7vk4jdzcng.fsf%40alter.siamese.dyndns.org In-Reply-To: <20101213172238.GA16136@sigill.intra.peff.net> ``` Thanks. ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2010-12-13 19:51 Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] t800?-blame.sh: retitle uniquely Message-ID: <7vfwu1zc0x.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/7vfwu1zc0x.fsf%40alter.siamese.dyndns.org In-Reply-To: <20101213170734.GA24736@sigill.intra.peff.net> ``` Jeff King writes: > On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 05:12:29PM +0100, Michael J Gruber wrote: > >> On a related note to J6t's patch, how's the stance on unique titles? >> Unique numbers are important for partial test runs, of course, >> but unique titles help finding you way through the test. >> There are more than the blame.sh ones. > > I don't think it is a big deal, but I did just 5 minutes ago get annoyed > at: > > t7500-commit.sh > t7501-commit.sh > t7502-commit.sh > t7509-commit.sh t7509 seems to be about the authorship, so it is easy to rename it to t7509-commit-authorship or something, but unfortunately I do not see unifying theme in any of t750[012]. They test random things and there seem to be overlaps. Perhaps somebody wants to consolidate these three into one? ``` ## Jeff King, 2010-12-13 19:58 Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] t800?-blame.sh: retitle uniquely Message-ID: <20101213195846.GA18355@sigill.intra.peff.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20101213195846.GA18355%40sigill.intra.peff.net In-Reply-To: <7vfwu1zc0x.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> ``` On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:51:58AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > t7500-commit.sh > > t7501-commit.sh > > t7502-commit.sh > > t7509-commit.sh > > t7509 seems to be about the authorship, so it is easy to rename it to > t7509-commit-authorship or something, but unfortunately I do not see > unifying theme in any of t750[012]. They test random things and there > seem to be overlaps. I read through them and came to the same conclusion. > Perhaps somebody wants to consolidate these three into one? I think this falls into my "would be nice if it had been written cleaner in the first place, but is not worth the time to clean up" category. But if somebody else is willing to work on it, I have no objection. :) -Peff ```