On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 11:54 AM Johannes Schindelin < johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Yes, I performed manual testing. Alright! Just manually tested your "git" scenario myself on the Linux build and all seems to be in order. > I guess we should add a test where we copy the `git` executable into a > subdirectory with the name "git" and call `git/git --exec-path` and verify > that its output matches our expectation? I'm actually a little fuzzy on the testing model here. As things are, this test will only work if Git is relocatable; however, the test suite doesn't seem to be equipped to build multiple versions of Git for different tests. From this I conclude that the right approach would be to make a test that runs conditional on RUNTIME_PREFIX being set, but I'm not familiar enough with the testing framework to be confident that this is correct, or really how to go about writing such a test. A simple grep suggests that the current test suite doesn't seem to have any RUNTIME_PREFIX-specific tests. When I've been running the test suites, I've been doing it with a "config.mak" file that explicitly enables RUNTIME_PREFIX to get the runtime prefix code tested against the standard Git testing suites. From a Git maintainer's perspective, would such a test be a prerequisite for landing this patch series, or is this a good candidate for follow-up work to improve our testing coverage? -Dan
