Thread (11 messages) flat view 11 messages, 3 authors, 2016-06-15

Re: [PATCH 0/5] range-set and line-log bug fixes

From: Johannes Sixt <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:58:15

Am 7/25/2013 10:03, schrieb Eric Sunshine:
The tests in this series identify real bugs in dealing with empty
ranges, which the subsequent patches fix. The test are possible
because one can specify an empty range via blame/log -L, however, I
now realize that the ability for -L to create empty ranges was never
intended or part of the design, but is in fact itself a bug.
...
* Should we drop these new t4211 tests which guard against real potential bugs?

* Should we add custom C code to the test suite to make the
empty-range testing possible?

* Should we introduce another (undocumented) loophole just for the
sake of the tests?
IIUC, the tests you added are protecting the *implementation* of range-set
functions. For tests of the implementation, we usually write test-foo
programs that call the functions directly.

Tests invoking git should test the observable behavior. Therefore, if
calling a git utility with "-Lfoo,+0" should be an error, then the test
suite should mark such a call with test_must_fail. I guess this rules out
the loophole approach.

-- Hannes
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help