Hi! Vagrant Cascadian <vagr...@debian.org> skribis:
> On 2020-12-03, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> Should we close this issue now that you found the RES_OPTIONS=attempts:0 >> trick, or do you think we should still keep the refactoring bits? > > Well, it's three cases of copy-paste code, and one nearly identical but > inverted. Someone once suggested to me to refactor on the third instance > of copy-pasted code... > > Having common tests makes it a little easier to add to new tests in the > future with the same code, and if there's ever a change in the > underlying code, you fix it in once place. It also opens the door to > adding other common functions, if it comes up. > > So I'd say it's worth applying, though also would be ok with leaving as > is and just taking advantage of the RES_OPTIONS=attempts:0 workaround. Makes sense to me. I’ll let you push it or let me know if you prefer me to do it. Thanks! Ludo’.
