Subject: Re: [PATCH] test-lib-functions: fix test_subcommand_inexact

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 07:53:05 -0700

Derrick Stolee <[email-masked]> writes:

> So, this patch is incorrect about keeping things working. The
> options are:
>
> 1. Keep the repeated ".*" and be clear about the expectations.
>    (This could drop the "remove trailing comma" line.)
>
> 2. Find another way to test this --write-midx behavior while
>    keeping the stricter test_subcommand_inexact helper.
>
> 3. Something else???

The result of doing #1 is still "inexact" but at that point it is
unclear if we are being way too inexact to be useful.  If the
looseness bothers us too much, we may decide that #1 is not worth
doing.  But obviously the looseness did not bother us that much
until last week, so probably an obvious #3, do nothing, letting the
sleeping dog lie, might be what we want to do?

If we were to pursue #2, then, would we tightening the test for the
write-midx using the "stricter" helper, or would the stricter one be
too strict to be useful for that case?  If we are rewriting the
write-midx test by not using the "stricter" helper, then we would be
creating a stricter one nobody uses, which sounds quite wasteful.

It seems that the only case that could result in a result that is
better than "do nothing" is if we can use a different pattern with
the "stricter" helper to express what "write-midx" test wanted to
do, but because what we need to fuzzily match on the command line in
that test includes a generated temporary filename, I do not think
it is likely to be easily doable.

So, perhaps #3 ;-)?