Re: [PATCH 3/4 v6] cache-tree: subdirectory tests

> Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:31 PM, David Turner <dturner@twopensource.com> wrote:
> >> Add tests to confirm that invalidation of subdirectories neither over-
> >> nor under-invalidates.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: David Turner <dturner@twitter.com>
> >> ---
> >>  t/t0090-cache-tree.sh | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++---
> >>  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/t/t0090-cache-tree.sh b/t/t0090-cache-tree.sh
> >> index 98fb1ab..3a3342e 100755
> >> --- a/t/t0090-cache-tree.sh
> >> +++ b/t/t0090-cache-tree.sh
> >> @@ -22,9 +22,10 @@ test_shallow_cache_tree () {
> >>  }
> >>
> >>  test_invalid_cache_tree () {
> >> -       echo "invalid                                   (0 subtrees)" >expect &&
> >> -       printf "SHA #(ref)  (%d entries, 0 subtrees)\n" $(git ls-files|wc -l) >>expect &&
> >> -       cmp_cache_tree expect
> >> +       printf "invalid                                  %s ()\n" "" "$@" >expect &&
> 
> Hmm.  This will always expect that the top-level is invalid, even
> when $# is 0.  It is OK if you never need to use this to test that a
> cache-tree is fully valid, but is it something we want to check?

> Existing tests are mostly about "cache-tree is populated fully at a
> few strategic, well known and easy places and then it degrades over
> time", but after all your series is adding more places to that set
> of "a few places", so we may want to make sure that future breakages
> to the new code paths that "repair" the cache-tree are caught by
> these tests.