Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] remote: use remote_is_configured() for add and rename
- From
Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com>
- Date
- Feb 16, 2016, 00:16 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20160216001609.GB1831@hank>
- In-Reply-To
- <20160215230920.GC30631@sigill.intra.peff.net>
On 02/15, Jeff King wrote:
Show 28 quoted lines
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 05:52:14PM -0500, Eric Sunshine wrote: > > > > diff --git a/t/t5505-remote.sh b/t/t5505-remote.sh > > > @@ -157,6 +157,24 @@ test_expect_success 'rename errors out early when deleting non-existent branch' > > > +test_expect_success 'add existing foreign_vcs remote' ' > > > + git config --add remote.foo.vcs "bar" && > > > + git config --add remote.bar.vcs "bar" && > > > + test_when_finished git remote rm foo && > > > + test_when_finished git remote rm bar && > > > > Nit: If the second git-config fails, then none of the cleanup will > > happen. You'd either want to re-order them like this: > > > > git config --add remote.foo.vcs "bar" && > > test_when_finished git remote rm foo && > > git config --add remote.bar.vcs "bar" && > > test_when_finished git remote rm bar && > > Good catch. Do we actually care about "--add" here at all? We do not > expect these remotes to have any existing config, I think. So would: > > test_config remote.foo.vcs bar && > test_config remote.bar.vcs bar > > do? I guess technically the failing "git remote rename" could introduce > extra config that is not cleaned up by those invocations, and we need to > "git remote rm" to get a clean slate, but I don't think that is the case > now (and it does not seem likely to become so in the future).
Good point, I think the test_config is indeed enough. Thanks, both, will fix in the re-roll.
> -Peff
-- Thomas