From: Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org>
To: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, gitster@pobox.com, rsbecker@nexbridge.com,
github@seichter.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] t1300: add more tests for whitespace and inline comments
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 22:54:32 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9e72093587177459a40d4aefb213b8b5@manjaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPig+cSJdBm+sRcXSpdZYUqSqktN3ytcjD3kmhu6WfTRuqkPrg@mail.gmail.com>
On 2024-03-18 20:17, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 4:17 AM Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org>
> wrote:
>> On 2024-03-18 03:48, Eric Sunshine wrote:
>> > Readability wasn't my reason for bringing this up. As a reviewer,
>> > every time a question pops into my mind as I'm reading the code, that
>> > indicates that something about the code is unclear or that the commit
>> > message doesn't properly explain why it was done in this way. People
>> > coming across this code in the future may have the same questions but
>> > they won't have the benefit of being able to easily ask you why it was
>> > done this way.
>>
>> I see. How about including a small comment in the t1300 that would
>> explain the additional indentation?
>
> I'm just one reviewer. Unless others chime in with similar
> observations or questions regarding the patch, I don't think such a
> comment is necessary. Aside from the other more significant points
> (such as not introducing x_to_tab(), using "setup" in the function
> title, etc.), this is extremely minor, and what you have here is "good
> enough" (though you may want to take Junio's suggestion of using a
> leading "|" to protect indentation).
Just to reiterate, both x_to_tab() and the test naming have already
been addressed in the future v3 of this series.
>> As a note, there are already more tests in the t1300 that contain such
>> indentation, so maybe we shoulddo something with those existing tests
>> as well; the above-proposed comment, which would be placed at the
>> very
>> beginning of t1300, may provide a satisfactory explanation for all the
>> tests in t1300 that contain such additional indentation.
>>
>> Another option would be to either add the indentation to all relevant
>> tests in the t1300, or to remove the indentation from all tests in the
>> t1300 that already contain it. I'd be happy to implement and submit
>> patches that do that, after we choose the direction we want to follow.
>
> It would be better to keep this series focused on its primary goal of
> fixing a bug rather than being held hostage to an ever increasing set
> of potential cleanups. Such cleanups can be done as separate patch
> series either atop this series or alongside it. Let's land this series
> first, and then, if you wish, tackle those other less significant
> issues.
Thanks, I totally agree.
>> > If these new tests are also checking leading whitespace behavior, then
>> > to improve coverage, would it make sense to have the leading "X" on
>> > some lines but not others?
>>
>> Good point, despite that not being the main purpose of the added
>> tests.
>> I'll see to add a couple of tests that check the handling of
>> indentation,
>> possibly at some places in the t1300 that fit the best; improving the
>> tests coverage can only help in the long run.
>
> As above, such additional tests probably aren't mandatory for this
> bug-fix series. As a reviewer, I'd like to see fewer and fewer changes
> between each version of a patch series; the series should converge so
> that it can land rather than diverge from iteration to iteration. Such
> additional leading-whitespace tests may be perfectly appropriate for a
> follow-up series.
Agreed once again. Let's wrap this up, and I'll come back with the
follow-up patches.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-18 21:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-17 3:48 [PATCH v2 0/5] Fix a bug in configuration parsing, and improve tests and documentation Dragan Simic
2024-03-17 3:48 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] config: minor addition of whitespace Dragan Simic
2024-03-17 3:48 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] config: really keep value-internal whitespace verbatim Dragan Simic
2024-03-17 3:48 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] test: introduce new x_to_tab() helper function Dragan Simic
2024-03-17 4:03 ` Eric Sunshine
2024-03-17 4:16 ` Dragan Simic
2024-03-17 3:48 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] t1300: add more tests for whitespace and inline comments Dragan Simic
2024-03-17 4:21 ` Eric Sunshine
2024-03-17 4:27 ` Eric Sunshine
2024-03-17 4:50 ` Dragan Simic
2024-03-18 2:48 ` Eric Sunshine
2024-03-18 4:38 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-03-18 8:37 ` Dragan Simic
2024-03-18 19:21 ` Eric Sunshine
2024-03-18 21:57 ` Dragan Simic
2024-03-18 8:17 ` Dragan Simic
2024-03-18 19:17 ` Eric Sunshine
2024-03-18 20:28 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-03-18 21:54 ` Dragan Simic [this message]
2024-03-17 3:48 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] config.txt: describe handling of whitespace further Dragan Simic
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=9e72093587177459a40d4aefb213b8b5@manjaro.org \
--to=dsimic@manjaro.org \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=github@seichter.de \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=rsbecker@nexbridge.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).