From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE1FCC77B75 for ; Tue, 9 May 2023 18:27:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229592AbjEIS1j (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 May 2023 14:27:39 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:51980 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229484AbjEIS1i (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 May 2023 14:27:38 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-x649.google.com (mail-pl1-x649.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::649]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C15DB4 for ; Tue, 9 May 2023 11:27:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x649.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1aae2223aaeso35032745ad.2 for ; Tue, 09 May 2023 11:27:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20221208; t=1683656857; x=1686248857; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=QKIz4JMR0mKH3bJ9qZdb/O9aWWZJAoOT9JAEH94gmQc=; b=avOTcK7i6HCm1izWd9Nm5P1jDarWGF/lhNduXzG/kOUjHOS6jzaMfRlSzVoekVxEYS E87LkQt/PzClh4Lc/0TKkgXsBWh9TFGNk0rewoU7H/WArzecZ4rZ3KY48APdHDi4Ys+d Jdxvp5JPCS8H02PuxoLhc80z1RLF+WceZZZhIwHj07jlnrkBBcgYRhnrQ89n/Rhr+B72 Nj9YvfKCvpYeEip9Qhu1RwsEAoPniurqG9uxx+qo3Wxc8ShoXt7a4qxT4vu2jA87kMgq QAT/ah7BzJpX20vq5auOUAlOwgWFcotpK36cN0ERQj0A4KhDypZPtdhjxFvXTMmnt7GE q11g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1683656857; x=1686248857; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=QKIz4JMR0mKH3bJ9qZdb/O9aWWZJAoOT9JAEH94gmQc=; b=RXoLXjTZ89FPpXYu83dMij7Yst7AGVBCxMXigICJtRNoL82WIKqXK27tF7sxpkF735 k0F55wYQSez/xsZaiq8k4bEgqOmjXUohOdoqREGos3xNZ3UYSSkIWF1mIKLZCPKpfx5D bpNh/jNpJRKKHNckFI4/2Pp6TeNpTx6MIfMgTiBKfRoxyyZql+eDxB4+XRxVm1U0ajq2 mHj1boRqpPcwJETn4VvnXLqzX/Nc18vIIayY6MxkwBmI16MJHpcuXfczKqHJbP9idh+k O5YI8Wlc7cxkPVYwbJvDL0DfNE1NUiCtGfLZyVdF3zNbQ8G4lq0EqflEccRS0toraCkt VvvQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDwjTSUAH26hJxUCDNw/R/MhxhkA9Gx/BHGU57v9tYFS9zmCnj4m UI/hBFgGsl/BqTEXDstA/oaZwSmmt6KoWg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ5gdTfZjFVBesBYOrDvB2HZyAYsk/zpGo393Ew2d9MFyo0YG3AuA0Cn6om0yiJLDAA52lEtwnUsMN1P5w== X-Received: from chooglen.c.googlers.com ([fda3:e722:ac3:cc00:24:72f4:c0a8:3a07]) (user=chooglen job=sendgmr) by 2002:a17:903:3281:b0:1a5:32f3:ca95 with SMTP id jh1-20020a170903328100b001a532f3ca95mr5168813plb.8.1683656857017; Tue, 09 May 2023 11:27:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 09 May 2023 11:27:35 -0700 In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 References: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/8] fetch: fix `--no-recurse-submodules` with multi-remote fetches From: Glen Choo To: Junio C Hamano , Patrick Steinhardt Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Felipe Contreras , Jonathan Tan , Jacob Keller Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Junio C Hamano writes: >> + git config fetch.parallel 0 && > > Is this necessary for the purpose of the test, though? It should > not hurt, but we do not require the end-users to set it in real life > for the parallel fetching to work, either, right? IIUC it would make the test output deterministic if we fetched from both remotes. That doesn't happen here though, so I guess it's not doing anything right now. >> + git fetch --all --no-recurse-submodules 2>../actual >> + ) && >> + >> + cat >expect <<-EOF && >> + From ../src >> + * [new branch] master -> secondary/master >> + EOF >> + test_cmp expect actual >> +' > > In the context of a series that attempts to introduce a new stable > output format for machine consumption, which implies the traditional > output can change to match human users' preference, this test feels > a bit brittle, but let's wait until the end of the series to judge > that. I also find it a bit brittle to assert on the whole output when this test is about checking that we do not fetch the superproject. Is there a reason you didn't go with the "grep for submodule lines" approach in the previous tests? If it's about catching regressions, IMO your PATCH 2/8 does a good enough job of doing that. Wondering out loud, I wonder if it makes sense for us to make a bigger distinction between "tests whose purpose is to guard against unexpected changes in output" (i.e. snapshot tests) vs "tests that happen to use output as a way to assert behavior" (i.e. 'regular' behavioral tests). Many GUI app codebases have such a distinction and have different best practices around them.