Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] send-email: add test for duplicate utf8 name

"Michael S. Tsirkin" [off-list ref] writes:

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 02:41:37PM +0200, Thomas Rast wrote:

quoted

"Michael S. Tsirkin" [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Verify that author name is not duplicated if it matches
sender, even if it is in utf8.

Small nit: if you make two patches out of it, add the tests first with
test_expect_failure.  Then flip it to test_expect_success in the actual
code change.  That makes it easy to verify that the test actually checks
the right thing, and that it was your code change that fixed it.

I did this by reverting 1/2 and rerunning.

But applying in reverse order means bisect can give us
a setup where some tests fail, I thought it's a
good idea to avoid that.

That's why you need to test_expect_*failure* in the commit that adds the
tests -- essentially saying "I know this is broken!".

Yes, it's a roundabout way.  But splitting code and tests in the way you
just posted is equally roundabout, while not having the benefit that one
can check out the commit at patch 1 and verify that it is indeed broken
(showing up as "still have known breakage").

-- 
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 02:48:15PM +0200, Thomas Rast wrote:

"Michael S. Tsirkin" [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 02:41:37PM +0200, Thomas Rast wrote:

quoted

"Michael S. Tsirkin" [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Verify that author name is not duplicated if it matches
sender, even if it is in utf8.

Small nit: if you make two patches out of it, add the tests first with
test_expect_failure.  Then flip it to test_expect_success in the actual
code change.  That makes it easy to verify that the test actually checks
the right thing, and that it was your code change that fixed it.

I did this by reverting 1/2 and rerunning.

But applying in reverse order means bisect can give us
a setup where some tests fail, I thought it's a
good idea to avoid that.

That's why you need to test_expect_*failure* in the commit that adds the
tests -- essentially saying "I know this is broken!".

Yes, it's a roundabout way.  But splitting code and tests in the way you
just posted is equally roundabout, while not having the benefit that one
can check out the commit at patch 1 and verify that it is indeed broken
(showing up as "still have known breakage").

I'll try to do it like this next time, I hope for now Junio
can take it as is.

-- 
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch