From: Glen Choo <chooglen@google.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
Kousik Sanagavarapu <five231003@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org,
Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>,
Hariom Verma <hariom18599@gmail.com>,
Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com>,
Siddharth Singh <siddhartth@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] ref-filter: add multiple-option parsing functions
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2023 10:42:12 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <kl6lzg3qzdhn.fsf@chooglen-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqjzuv5vvg.fsf@gitster.g>
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> New helper functions that do not have any caller and no
> documentation to explain how they are supposed to be called
> (i.e. the expectation on the callers---what values they need to feed
> as parameters when they call these helpers, and the expectation by
> the callers---what they expect to get out of the helpers once they
> return) makes it impossible to evaluate if they are any good [*].
Agreed.
> Side note. Those of you who are keen to add unit tests to
> the system (Cc:ed) , do you think a patch line this one that
> adds a new helper function to the system, would benefit from
> being able to add a few unit tests for these otherwise
> unused helper functions?
Absolutely. As a rule, we should strive to test all of our changes as
they are introduced. With our current shell-based testing, this means
that we have to add callers (either via a builtin or test-helper), but
IMO a unit test framework would serve this purpose even better.
> The calls to the new functions that the unit test framework
> would make should serve as a good piece of interface
> documentation, showing what the callers are supposed to pass
> and what they expect, I guess.
Agreed, and as documentation, unit tests can be easier to read, since
they can include only the relevant details.
> So whatever framework we choose, it should allow adding a
> test or two to this patch easily, without being too
> intrusive. Would that be a good and concrete evaluation
> criterion?
Perhaps, but the biggest blocker to adding a unit tests is whether the
source file itself is amenable to being unit tested (e.g. does it depend
on global state? does it compile easily?). Once that is in place, I
can't imagine that there would be a sensible unit test framework that
doesn't make it easy to add tests to a patch like this.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-20 17:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-07-05 17:57 [PATCH 0/2] Add new "describe" atom Kousik Sanagavarapu
2023-07-05 17:57 ` [PATCH 1/2] ref-filter: add " Kousik Sanagavarapu
2023-07-06 16:58 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-07-09 6:16 ` Kousik Sanagavarapu
2023-07-05 17:57 ` [PATCH 2/2] t6300: run describe atom tests on a different repo Kousik Sanagavarapu
2023-07-14 19:20 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] Add new "describe" atom Kousik Sanagavarapu
2023-07-14 19:20 ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] ref filter: add multiple-option parsing functions Kousik Sanagavarapu
2023-07-14 19:20 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] ref-filter: add new "describe" atom Kousik Sanagavarapu
2023-07-14 20:57 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-07-15 18:24 ` Kousik Sanagavarapu
2023-07-15 18:56 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-07-14 19:20 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] t6300: run describe atom tests on a different repo Kousik Sanagavarapu
2023-07-19 16:15 ` [PATCH v3 0/2] Add new "describe" atom Kousik Sanagavarapu
2023-07-19 16:15 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] ref-filter: add multiple-option parsing functions Kousik Sanagavarapu
2023-07-19 23:23 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-07-20 5:21 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-07-20 16:52 ` Kousik Sanagavarapu
2023-07-20 17:59 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-07-20 17:42 ` Glen Choo [this message]
2023-07-20 20:30 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-07-21 18:26 ` Glen Choo
2023-07-19 16:15 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] ref-filter: add new "describe" atom Kousik Sanagavarapu
2023-07-19 22:56 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-07-20 22:52 ` [PATCH v3 0/2] Add " Junio C Hamano
2023-07-20 23:10 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-07-21 4:17 ` Kousik Sanagavarapu
2023-07-23 16:19 ` [PATCH v4 " Kousik Sanagavarapu
2023-07-23 16:19 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] ref-filter: add multiple-option parsing functions Kousik Sanagavarapu
2023-07-24 17:29 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-07-24 18:12 ` Kousik Sanagavarapu
2023-07-24 20:39 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-07-25 19:27 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-07-23 16:19 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] ref-filter: add new "describe" atom Kousik Sanagavarapu
2023-07-24 17:21 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-07-25 20:51 ` [PATCH v5 0/2] Add " Kousik Sanagavarapu
2023-07-25 20:51 ` [PATCH v5 1/2] ref-filter: add multiple-option parsing functions Kousik Sanagavarapu
2023-07-25 20:51 ` [PATCH v5 2/2] ref-filter: add new "describe" atom Kousik Sanagavarapu
2023-07-25 21:46 ` [PATCH v5 0/2] Add " Junio C Hamano
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=kl6lzg3qzdhn.fsf@chooglen-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com \
--to=chooglen@google.com \
--cc=christian.couder@gmail.com \
--cc=five231003@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=hariom18599@gmail.com \
--cc=siddhartth@google.com \
--cc=steadmon@google.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 read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).