Re: [PATCH] transport-helper: enforce atomic in push_refs_with_push
On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 11:13:45AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 34 quoted lines
> SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 02:37:42PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> > +test_expect_success 'push --atomic shows all failed refs' '
> >> > + # Make up/master, up/allrefs
> >> > + d=$HTTPD_DOCUMENT_ROOT_PATH/atomic-failed-refs.git &&
> >> > + git init --bare "$d" &&
> >> > + git --git-dir="$d" config http.receivepack true &&
> >> > + up="$HTTPD_URL"/smart/atomic-failed-refs.git &&
> >> > + test_commit allrefs1 &&
> >> > + test_commit allrefs2 &&
> >> > + git branch allrefs &&
> >> > + git push "$up" master allrefs &&
> >> > + # Make master and allrefs incompatible with up/master, up/allrefs
> >> > + git checkout allrefs &&
> >> > + git reset --hard HEAD^ &&
> >> > + git checkout master &&
> >> > + git reset --hard HEAD^ &&
> >> > + # --atomic should complain about both master and allrefs
> >> > + test_must_fail git push --atomic "$up" master allrefs >&output &&
> >>
> >> Don't rely on ">&output", which is an unnecessary bash-ism here. It
> >> breaks test run under shells like dash.
> >>
> >> >output 2>&1
> >>
> >> should be OK.
> >
> > '2>output' would be a tad better, because those refs should be printed
> > to stderr.
>
> Yeah; there are many existing uses of ">output 2>&1" in the same
> script and I was following the suit. There also are 2>err and I
> agree that it is more appropriate in this case.
Oh, this is a good point. I'll change it, thanks both.