Re: [PATCH] tests: prefer host Git to verify chainlint self-checks

On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 3:13 AM Patrick Steinhardt [off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 10:33:00PM -0500, Eric Sunshine wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 10:11 AM Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Mostly because your "differences in features supported by just-built
one and what happens to be on $PATH can cause problems" cuts both
ways [...]

I sent an alternative solution[1] which should sidestep this objection.

Thanks, I've replied to the thread. I think by now there are three
different ideas:

  - Improve the logic to pick some kind of diff implementation, which is
    my patch series. It would need to be improved so that we also probe
    whether the respective Git executables actually understand the repo
    format so that we can fall back from the just-built Git to system's
    Git.

  - Munge the whitespace of the expected results with some regexes.
    I like that idea better because we can avoid the git-diff(1)
    problem, but find that the result is somewhat hard to read.

  - Fix the ".expect" files so that we can avoid all of these games.

I actually like the last option most. I'll have a go at it and send this
third version out in a bit.

I sent a reply[1] in the other thread explaining why I'm still leaning
toward `sed` to smooth over these minor differences rather than
churning the "expect" files, especially since the minor differences
are not significant to what is actually being tested. That said, I
won't stand in the way of such a patch to "fix" the "expect" files,
but it feels unnecessary.

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAPig+cSkuRfkR2D3JqYcbaJqj485nfD9Nq6pM=vXWB5DJenWpA@mail.gmail.com/ (local)