git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: [PATCH 1/2] rebase tests: test linear branch topology

From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date
Feb 22, 2019, 14:53 UTC
Message-ID
<20190222145344.GA5090@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To
<20190221214059.9195-2-avarab@gmail.com>
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:40:58PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> Add tests rebasing a linear branch topology to linear rebase tests
> added in 2aad7cace2 ("add simple tests of consistency across rebase
> types", 2013-06-06).

I had trouble parsing this. Did you mean s/topology to/topology, similar to/?

Show 5 quoted lines
> These tests are duplicates of two surrounding tests that do the same
> with tags pointing to the same objects. Right now there's no change in
> behavior being introduced, but as we'll see in a subsequent change
> rebase can have different behaviors when working implicitly with
> remote tracking branches.
It took me a while to figure out what was new in these tests. Maybe:
  These tests are duplicates of two surrounding tests, but with one
  change: the existing tests refer to objects by their tag names, but
  here we'll use branches (pointing at the same objects).
But then I'm left wondering why that's important.
> While I'm at it add a --fork-point test, strictly speaking this is
> redundant to the existing '' test, as no argument to rebase implies
> --fork-point. But now it's easier to grep for tests that explicitly
> stress --fork-point.
That makes sense.
Show 6 quoted lines
> +test_expect_success 'setup branches and remote tracking' '
> +	git tag -l >tags &&
> +	for tag in $(cat tags)
> +	do
> +		git branch branch-$tag $tag || return 1
> +	done &&
I don't think we need this extra tmpfile and cat, do we? I.e.,
  for tag in $(git tag -l)

would work. We should probably avoid depending on the exact output of the porcelain "tag", though. Maybe:

  git for-each-ref \
    --format='create refs/heads/branch-%(refname:strip=2) %(objectname)' \
    refs/tags |
  git update-ref --stdin
which has the added bonus of using a constant number of processes.
-Peff
Previous: Ævar Arnfjörð BjarmasonNext: Junio C Hamano
Message 7 of 12 in “BUG: 2.11-era rebase regression when @{upstream} is implicitly used”
  1. Ævar Arnfjörð BjarmasonFeb 14, 2019
  2. Jeff KingFeb 21, 2019
  3. Ævar Arnfjörð BjarmasonFeb 21, 2019
  4. Jeff KingFeb 21, 2019
  5. 0/2 rebase: fix 2.11.0-era --fork-point regressionÆvar Arnfjörð Bjarmason, Feb 21, 2019
  6. 1/2 rebase tests: test linear branch topologyÆvar Arnfjörð Bjarmason, Feb 21, 2019
  7. Jeff KingFeb 22, 2019
  8. Junio C HamanoFeb 22, 2019
  9. 2/2 rebase: don't rebase linear topology with --fork-pointÆvar Arnfjörð Bjarmason, Feb 21, 2019
  10. Jeff KingFeb 22, 2019
  11. Ævar Arnfjörð BjarmasonFeb 22, 2019
  12. Jeff KingFeb 24, 2019

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.