From: John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 11:19:11 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] push: add shorthand for --force-with-lease branch creation
Message-ID: <20160726111911.cehaitav4enas7dm@john.keeping.me.uk>
In-Reply-To: <57973BAD.2020607@gmail.com>

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 12:30:05PM +0200, Jakub Narębski wrote:
> W dniu 2016-07-25 o 23:59, John Keeping pisze:
> 
> > +test_expect_success 'new branch covered by force-with-lease (explicit)' '
> > +	setup_srcdst_basic &&
> > +	(
> > +		cd dst &&
> > +		git branch branch master &&
> > +		git push --force-with-lease=branch: origin branch
> > +	) &&
> > +	git ls-remote dst refs/heads/branch >expect &&
> > +	git ls-remote src refs/heads/branch >actual &&
> > +	test_cmp expect actual
> > +'
> 
> Do we need to test the negative, that is that if branch is not
> new it prevents push (e.g. when <branch> is HEAD), or is it
> covered by other tests?

It's covered by a test in patch 3 (at least for the implicit case added
there), but I could pull that forwards.  In fact, converting that test
to the explicit syntax will make it simpler since we won't need to set
up a non-fast-forward push.