Re: [PATCH 1/2] t1506: more test for @{upstream} syntax
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Jan 28, 2010, 08:52 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20100128085218.GE9071@coredump.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <7viqanqt5s.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:50:07AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 11 quoted lines
> > A minor nit, but wouldn't: > > > > int approxidate_careful(const char *str, unsigned long *out); > > > > returning an error code be the more usual pattern for a function with > > error-plus-output (your approxidate wrapper would have to be a function then, > > not a macro)? > > I don't have strong preference either way; the one in the patch was > modelled after setup_git_directory_gently(&nongit_ok), and slightly easier > to work with for existing callers that don't care enough.
Looks like you have already pushed out the original patch, so let's not worry about it.
Show 24 quoted lines
> >> +test_expect_success '@{30.years.ago} shows old' '
> >> + check_at @{30.years.ago} one
> >
> > Side note: I chose this because we needed to go back from the current
> > time beyond where test_tick would place the commit. Which means this
> > test has a 2035 bug. :)
>
> Can't we use an absolute date, given that test_tick gives fixed timestamp
> sequence to pretend as if we were still in 2005 when we are running these
> tests?
> [...]
> --- a/t/t0101-at-syntax.sh
> +++ b/t/t0101-at-syntax.sh
> @@ -26,8 +26,8 @@ test_expect_success '@{now} shows current' '
> check_at @{now} two
> '
>
> -test_expect_success '@{30.years.ago} shows old' '
> - check_at @{30.years.ago} one
> +test_expect_success '@{2001-09-17} (before the first commit) shows old' '
> + check_at @{2001-09-17} one
> '
>
> test_expect_success 'silly approxidates work' 'Yes, I don't know why I was so concerned with using a relative approxidate when an absolute one would suffice. However, we should make a matching change in the silly approxidate entry, too. Like this:
-- >8 -- Subject: [PATCH] t0101: use absolute date
The original version used relative approxidates, which don't reproduce as reliably as absolute ones. Commit 6c647a fixed this for one case, but missed the "silly" case.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> --- t/t0101-at-syntax.sh | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/t/t0101-at-syntax.sh b/t/t0101-at-syntax.sh index 5e298c5..a1998b5 100755 --- a/t/t0101-at-syntax.sh +++ b/t/t0101-at-syntax.sh @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ test_expect_success '@{2001-09-17} (before the first commit) shows old' ' ' test_expect_success 'silly approxidates work' ' - check_at @{3.hot.dogs.and.30.years.ago} one + check_at @{3.hot.dogs.on.2001-09-17} one ' test_expect_success 'notice misspelled upstream' '