On 2020-10-24 09:53:18-0700, Elijah Newren [off-list ref] wrote:

On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 3:49 AM Đoàn Trần Công Danh
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 2020-10-23 16:01:16+0000, Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

+test_expect_merge_algorithm () {
+     status_for_recursive=$1
+     shift
+     status_for_ort=$1
+     shift
+
+     if test "$GIT_TEST_MERGE_ALGORITHM" = ort
+     then
+             test_expect_${status_for_ort} "$@"
+     else
+             test_expect_${status_for_recursive} "$@"
-test_expect_failure 'check symlink modify/modify' '
+test_expect_merge_algorithm failure success 'check symlink modify/modify' '

I find this series of "failure success" hard to decode without
understanding what it would be, then I need to keep rememberring which
status is corresponding with with algorithm.

Perhaps this patch is a bit easier to read. This is largely based on
your patch. (I haven't read other patches, yet).

What do you think?

It is easier to read and I think something along these lines would
make a lot of sense if this weren't a transient change (the idea is to
eventually drop the recursive backend in favor of ort, and then these
can all switch to just using test_expect_success).  Maybe it still
makes sense to make further changes here anyway, but if we do go this
route, there are 1-2 things we can/should change:

First, while a lot of my contributions aren't that important, and the

Mine aren't that important, either

new test_expect_* function certainly falls in that category, one of
the driving goals behind a new merge algorithm was fixing up edge and
corner cases that were just too problematic in the recursive backend.
Thus, the patch where I get to flip the test expectation is one that I
care about more than most out of the (I'm guessing on this number)

Make sense.

100+ patches that will be part of this new merge algorithm.  Having
you take over ownership of that patch thus isn't right; we should
instead keep my original patch and apply your suggested changes on top
(or have a patch from you introducing a new function first, and then
have a patch from me using it to flip test expectations on top).

You can take back the ownership, the patch was based on yours, anyway.

I wrote like that since I need to rewrite part of the message to match
with my changes ;)

No need to generate extra noise of additional patch.

Second, I think that lines like
    test_expect_merge_success recursive=failure ...
read like a contradiction and are also confusing.  I think it'd be
better if it read something like
    test_expect_merge recursive=failure ort=success ...
or something along those lines.

When I wrote the patch, I was expecting something like

	test_expect_merge_success recursive=failure,other=failure ...

in order to merge all algorithm into single parameters.

How about something like:

	test_expect_merge_success exception=recursive,other ...

Not that we have "other" algorithm to begin with.

Thanks,
-- Danh