Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes:
> Are you proposing to replace the tests written as shell scripts with
> scripts in another language or framework that run equivalent
> sequences of git commands that is as portable as, if not more,
> Bourne shell?
The language (/bin/sh) is probably not the biggest issue. The way we use
it may be.
I don't have benchmark to tell what slows down the testsuite, but for
example we often write
cat >expected <<EOF &&
content
EOF
git foo >actual &&
test_cmp expected actual
We create 2 files, fork one 'cat' and one 'diff'. Now, suppose we can
write instead
test_check_output git foo <<EOF
content
EOF
where test_check_output would be a compiled program running "git foo"
with popen(), reading the expected output on stdin, and comparing both
(and possibly creating files and forking 'diff', but only on the error
path). That would reduce the overhead of test a lot: on fork+exec to
create the "test_check_output" process + plain string comparison.
Obviously, I don't expect this change to drastically reduce the time
(Peff's numbers seem to suggest that there's not so much to gain), but
maybe getting a few C helpers and "optimized" idioms in our testsuite
could lead to measurable improvements.
--
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/
