Web lists-archives.com

Re: [PATCH 09/20] abbrev tests: test for "git-log" behavior




On 9 June 2018 at 00:41, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The "log" family of commands does its own parsing for --abbrev in
> revision.c, so having dedicated tests for it makes sense.

> +for i in $(test_seq 4 40)

I've just been skimming so might have missed something, but I see
several instances of this construct, and I wonder what this brute-force
approach really buys us. An alternative would be, e.g., "for i in 4 23
40". That is, min/max and some arbitrary number in between (odd because
the others are even).

Of course, we might have a bug which magically happens for the number 9,
but I'd expect us to test for that only if we have some reason to
believe that number 9 is indeed magical.

Also, 40 is of course tied to SHA-1. You could perhaps define a variable
at the top of this file to simplify a future generalization. (Same for
39/41 which are related to 40.)

Martin