Re: [RFC 1/2] submodules: test for fetch of non-init subsub-repo

From: Philippe Blain <levraiphilippeblain@gmail.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: Peter Kaestle <peter.kaestle@nokia.com>,
	Git mailing list <git@vger.kernel.org>,
	Stefan Beller <stefanbeller@gmail.com>,
	Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] submodules: test for fetch of non-init subsub-repo
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 12:35:53 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <37DD13D4-FBE4-4DB7-85F5-824E850BA9AE@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqk0uuct94.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>

Hi Junio,

> Le 9 nov. 2020 à 12:52, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> a écrit :
> 
> Peter Kaestle <peter.kaestle@nokia.com> writes:
> 
>> This test case triggers a regression, which was introduced by
>> a62387b3fc9f5aeeb04a2db278121d33a9caafa7 in following setup:
> 
> Also, it probably is a better arrangement, after explaining how the
> current system does not work in the log message, to have the code
> fix in the same patch and add test to ensure the bug will stay
> fixed, in a single patch.  That way, you do not have to start with
> expect_failure and then flip the polarity to expect_success, which
> is a horrible style for reviewers to understand the code fix because
> the second "fix" step does not actually show the effect of what got
> fixed in the patch (the test change shows the flip of the polarity
> of the test plus only a few context lines and does not show what
> behaviour change the "fix" causes).

I had learned by browsing the list that this was the preferred way to
submit patches for bug fixes and regressions for this project, but I had
not yet read a good justification as to *why* it was preferred. 

Thanks for spelling it out; I think a quick paragraph about this somewhere
in SubmittingPatches would be a good addition for new contributors.

Cheers,

Philippe.