From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Cc: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>,
Git List <git@vger.kernel.org>,
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] t5516 (fetch-push): introduce mk_test_with_name()
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 14:58:45 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130320185844.GB30165@sigill.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130320184157.GO3655@google.com>
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:41:57AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
> > Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>
> >> I dunno. The helper functions at the top of this test are already
> >> intimidating, so I guess I am looking for a way to avoid making that
> >> problem worse.
> [...]
> > My patch does not make the situation worse in any way:
>
> Um, yes it does. It adds another function to learn to an already
> intimidating list.
Personally I do not find the set of helper functions intimidating. I
tend to read the tests in a top-down manner: a test is interesting
(usually because it fails), and then I want to see what it is doing, so
I look at any functions it calls, and so forth.
What I usually find _much_ harder to debug is when there is hidden state
leftover from other tests. So even though it is longer to write, I would
much rather see:
test_expect_success 'check that frob only affects foo' '
set_state_of foo &&
set_state_of bar &&
git frob &&
check_state_of foo &&
check_state_of bar
'
than for the test to assume the state of "foo" or "bar" prior to the
test. And I think helper functions can help make writing those sorts of
pre-conditions more reasonable (and without looking too hard, I think
t5516 does an OK job of that).
Related to that is when the helper functions operate on hidden state. In
this instance, we have tests that do things like:
mk_empty &&
git push testrepo refs/heads/master:refs/remotes/origin/master
and as a reader I say "wait, what's in testrepo?". I can follow mk_empty
and see that it hardcodes testrepo, but it is even better if the
function and its arguments are named in a way that I don't have to. So
even though it is more typing, I would argue that:
mk_empty testrepo &&
git push testrepo ...
is better, because the test script is more readable as a unit.
None of this is that huge a deal to me (and yet I seem to have written a
page about it :) ), but I figure while we are bikeshedding about test
style...
-Peff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-03-20 18:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-03-20 12:44 [PATCH v2 0/6] Support triangular workflows Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-03-20 12:44 ` [PATCH 1/6] remote.c: simplify a bit of code using git_config_string() Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-03-20 18:07 ` Jonathan Nieder
2013-03-20 18:12 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-03-20 12:44 ` [PATCH 2/6] t5516 (fetch-push): update test description Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-03-20 18:22 ` Jonathan Nieder
2013-03-20 18:33 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-03-20 18:35 ` Jonathan Nieder
2013-03-20 12:44 ` [PATCH 3/6] t5516 (fetch-push): introduce mk_test_with_name() Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-03-20 18:28 ` Jonathan Nieder
2013-03-20 18:38 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-03-20 18:41 ` Jonathan Nieder
2013-03-20 18:58 ` Jeff King [this message]
2013-03-20 19:52 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-03-20 20:00 ` Jonathan Nieder
2013-03-20 12:44 ` [PATCH 4/6] remote.c: introduce a way to have different remotes for fetch/push Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-03-20 18:30 ` Jonathan Nieder
2013-03-20 19:03 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-03-20 19:43 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-03-20 19:48 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-03-20 12:45 ` [PATCH 5/6] remote.c: introduce remote.pushdefault Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-03-20 18:32 ` Jonathan Nieder
2013-03-20 18:53 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-03-20 19:46 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-03-20 12:45 ` [PATCH 6/6] remote.c: introduce branch.<name>.pushremote Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-03-20 13:03 ` Tay Ray Chuan
2013-03-20 13:35 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-03-20 13:06 ` [PATCH v2 0/6] Support triangular workflows Tay Ray Chuan
2013-03-22 7:44 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-03-20 23:04 ` Philip Oakley
2013-03-22 7:41 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-03-22 15:16 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-03-23 12:42 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-03-22 7:52 [PATCH v3 " Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-03-22 7:52 ` [PATCH 3/6] t5516 (fetch-push): introduce mk_test_with_name() Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-03-22 14:44 ` Jeff King
2013-03-22 14:52 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-03-22 14:59 ` Jeff King
2013-03-22 21:14 ` Jonathan Nieder
2013-03-28 13:03 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-03-22 14:54 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-03-22 14:58 ` Jeff King
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130320185844.GB30165@sigill.intra.peff.net \
--to=peff@peff.net \
--cc=artagnon@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=jrnieder@gmail.com \
--cc=sunshine@sunshineco.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).