Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] config tests: test for --bool-or-str

From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2021 01:11:50 +0200

On Thu, Apr 08 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason  <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>> Add the missing tests for the --bool-or-str code added in
>> dbd8c09bfe (mergetool: allow auto-merge for meld to follow the
>> vim-diff behavior, 2020-05-07).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <[email-masked]>
>> ---
>>  t/t1300-config.sh | 72 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 72 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/t/t1300-config.sh b/t/t1300-config.sh
>> index e0dd5d65ce..a002ec5644 100755
>> --- a/t/t1300-config.sh
>> +++ b/t/t1300-config.sh
>> @@ -802,6 +802,78 @@ test_expect_success 'get --bool-or-int' '
>>  	test_cmp expect actual
>>  '
>>  
>> +test_expect_success 'get --bool-or-str' '
>> +	cat >.git/config <<-\EOF &&
>> +	[bool]
>> +	true1
>> +	true2 = true
>> +	true3 = TRUE
>> +	true4 = yes
>> +	true5 = YES
>> +	true6 = on
>> +	true7 = ON
>> +	false1 =
>> +	false2 = false
>> +	false3 = FALSE
>> +	false4 = no
>> +	false5 = NO
>> +	false6 = off
>> +	false7 = OFF
>> +	[int]
>> +	int1 = 0
>> +	int2 = 1
>> +	int3 = -1
>> +	[string]
>> +	string1 = hello
>> +	string2 = there you
>> +	EOF
>
> That's fairly complete set (but misses common permutations like
> "Yes").  I am not sure, if we try "true" and "TRUE", if it is worth
> to check yes/YES and others, but at the same time, I do not know if
> reducing the permutations tested would improve the readability,
> runtime and/or maintainability of the test.

Sure, I was trying to do just enough to cover strcasecmp(). I don't
think we need to do black-box testing here.

>> +	cat >expect <<-\EOF &&
>> +	true
>> +	true
>> +	true
>> +	true
>> +	true
>> +	true
>> +	true
>> +	false
>> +	false
>> +	false
>> +	false
>> +	false
>> +	false
>> +	false
>> +	false
>> +	false
>> +	true
>> +	true
>> +	hello
>> +	there you
>> +	EOF
>
> The "right answer" is hard to read and maintain.  Can we immediately
> spot what happened to int.int3 in this output, for example?
>
> Perhaps with something like
>
> 	inspect_config () {
> 		name=$1
> 		shift
> 		printf "%s %s\n" $(git config "$@" "$name") "$name"
> 	}
>
> we can make these lines to say
>
> 	int.int1 false
> 	int.int2 true
> 	int.int3 true
> 	string.string1 hello
> 	string.string2 there you
>
> to make them easier to follow?  Without such a hint, I would expect
> that a failure output from test_cmp at the end would be very hard to
> grok, especially with so many permutations tested that produces runs
> of "true" and "false".

It's a general established pattern in t1300-config.sh used by several
other existing tests, e.g. the one for bool, path etc. I'd rather not
get into a general refactoring of that file.

>> +	{
>> +		git config --type=bool-or-str bool.true1 &&
>> +		git config --bool-or-str bool.true2 &&
>
> This is a bit curious.  We do not do full permutation between
> --type=bool-or-str and --bool-or-str here.  We just check both
> would work only once.  Feels a bit inconsistent.

Yeah, I was just trying to stick a --type=X v.s. --X test somewhere. I
can add it to another test_expect_success or something.

> My gut-feeling vote is to just try true/TRUE for case insensitivity
> and try all the other variants in lowercase, but I can go with the
> full permutation if you strongly prefer it.
>
>> ...
>> +		git config --bool-or-str int.int1 &&
>> +		git config --bool-or-str int.int2 &&
>> +		git config --bool-or-str int.int3 &&
>> +		git config --bool-or-str string.string1 &&
>> +		git config --bool-or-str string.string2
>> +	} >actual &&
>> +	test_cmp expect actual
>> +'
>
> Thanks.