From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: git@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>,
Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>,
Michael J Gruber <git@grubix.eu>
Subject: [PATCH v2 0/5] some chainlint fixes and performance improvements
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2023 15:27:12 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230330192712.GA27719@coredump.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230328202043.GA1241391@coredump.intra.peff.net>
On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 04:20:44PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> Here are a few fixes for chainlint.
And here's a re-roll.
As before, I think the first patch is the most important, and the rest
are optimizations. But with Eric's patch to chainlint.pl in the middle,
I think the argument for patch 4 (previously patch 3) is much stronger.
Patch 5 remains mostly a cleanup, with no performance improvement. IMHO
the result is easier to follow, but I'm open to arguments to the
contrary.
[1/5]: tests: run internal chain-linter under "make test"
[2/5]: tests: replace chainlint subshell with a function
[3/5]: tests: diagnose unclosed here-doc in chainlint.pl
[4/5]: tests: drop here-doc check from internal chain-linter
[5/5]: tests: skip test_eval_ in internal chain-lint
t/Makefile | 4 +--
t/chainlint.pl | 15 +++++++++---
t/chainlint/unclosed-here-doc-indent.expect | 4 +++
t/chainlint/unclosed-here-doc-indent.test | 4 +++
t/chainlint/unclosed-here-doc.expect | 7 ++++++
t/chainlint/unclosed-here-doc.test | 7 ++++++
t/test-lib.sh | 27 +++++++++++----------
7 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 t/chainlint/unclosed-here-doc-indent.expect
create mode 100644 t/chainlint/unclosed-here-doc-indent.test
create mode 100644 t/chainlint/unclosed-here-doc.expect
create mode 100644 t/chainlint/unclosed-here-doc.test
Range-diff:
1: 19deb7195df ! 1: d536d3b9ec0 tests: run internal chain-linter under "make test"
@@ Commit message
## t/Makefile ##
@@ t/Makefile: CHAINLINT = '$(PERL_PATH_SQ)' chainlint.pl
+
# `test-chainlint` (which is a dependency of `test-lint`, `test` and `prove`)
# checks all tests in all scripts via a single invocation, so tell individual
- # scripts not to "chainlint" themselves
+-# scripts not to "chainlint" themselves
-CHAINLINTSUPPRESS = GIT_TEST_CHAIN_LINT=0 && export GIT_TEST_CHAIN_LINT &&
++# scripts not to run the external "chainlint.pl" script themselves
+CHAINLINTSUPPRESS = GIT_TEST_EXT_CHAIN_LINT=0 && export GIT_TEST_EXT_CHAIN_LINT &&
all: $(DEFAULT_TEST_TARGET)
2: a05c440dde5 = 2: fa29c781fca tests: replace chainlint subshell with a function
-: ----------- > 3: c1a3ec3619e tests: diagnose unclosed here-doc in chainlint.pl
3: 46556678938 ! 4: b5dc3618c83 tests: drop here-doc check from internal chain-linter
@@ Commit message
run for many tests.
The tradeoff in safety was undoubtedly worth it when 99a64e4b73c was
- written. But these days, the external chainlint.pl does a pretty good
- job of finding these (even though it's not something it specifically
- tries to flag). For example, if you have a test like:
-
- test_expect_success 'should fail linter' '
- some_command >actual &&
- cat >expect <<-\EOF &&
- ok
- # missing EOF line here
- test_cmp expect actual
- '
-
- it will see that the here-doc isn't closed, treat it as not-a-here-doc,
- and complain that the "ok" line does not have an "&&". So in practice we
- should be catching these via that linter, although:
-
- - the error message is not as good as it could be (the real problem is
- the unclosed here-doc)
-
- - it can be fooled if there are no lines in the here-doc:
-
- cat >expect <<-\EOF &&
- # missing EOF line here
-
- or if every line in the here-doc has &&-chaining (weird, but
- possible)
-
- Those are sufficiently unlikely that they're not worth worrying too much
- about. And by switching back to a simpler chain-lint, hyperfine reports
- a measurable speedup on t3070 (which has 1800 tests):
+ written. But since the external chainlint.pl learned to find these
+ recently, we can just rely on it. By switching back to a simpler
+ chain-lint, hyperfine reports a measurable speedup on t3070 (which has
+ 1800 tests):
'HEAD' ran
1.12 ± 0.01 times faster than 'HEAD~1'
4: f810780d326 = 5: 0ebf1da8b93 tests: skip test_eval_ in internal chain-lint
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-30 19:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-03-28 20:20 [PATCH 0/4] some chainlint fixes and performance improvements Jeff King
2023-03-28 20:22 ` [PATCH 1/4] tests: run internal chain-linter under "make test" Jeff King
2023-03-29 10:20 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2023-03-29 15:49 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-03-29 23:28 ` Jeff King
2023-03-30 18:45 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-03-28 20:23 ` [PATCH 2/4] tests: replace chainlint subshell with a function Jeff King
2023-03-28 20:40 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-03-28 20:28 ` [PATCH 3/4] tests: drop here-doc check from internal chain-linter Jeff King
2023-03-28 21:46 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-03-29 2:37 ` Jeff King
2023-03-29 3:04 ` Jeff King
2023-03-29 3:13 ` Eric Sunshine
2023-03-29 3:46 ` Eric Sunshine
2023-03-29 4:02 ` Eric Sunshine
2023-03-29 6:07 ` Jeff King
2023-03-29 6:28 ` Eric Sunshine
2023-03-29 3:07 ` Eric Sunshine
2023-03-29 6:28 ` Jeff King
2023-03-28 20:28 ` [PATCH 4/4] tests: skip test_eval_ in internal chain-lint Jeff King
2023-03-28 21:08 ` [PATCH 0/4] some chainlint fixes and performance improvements Jeff King
2023-03-30 22:08 ` Jeff King
2023-03-30 22:16 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-03-30 19:27 ` Jeff King [this message]
2023-03-30 19:27 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] tests: run internal chain-linter under "make test" Jeff King
2023-03-30 19:27 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] tests: replace chainlint subshell with a function Jeff King
2023-03-30 19:30 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] tests: diagnose unclosed here-doc in chainlint.pl Jeff King
2023-03-30 21:26 ` Eric Sunshine
2023-03-30 19:30 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] tests: drop here-doc check from internal chain-linter Jeff King
2023-03-30 19:30 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] tests: skip test_eval_ in internal chain-lint Jeff King
2023-03-30 20:32 ` [PATCH v2 0/5] some chainlint fixes and performance improvements Junio C Hamano
2023-03-30 22:09 ` 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=20230330192712.GA27719@coredump.intra.peff.net \
--to=peff@peff.net \
--cc=git@grubix.eu \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=phillip.wood123@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).