Re: [PATCH 4/6] t5616: use rev-parse instead to get HEAD's object_id
- From
Danh Doan <congdanhqx@gmail.com>
- Date
- Mar 20, 2020, 00:57 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20200320005751.GC1858@danh.dev>
- In-Reply-To
- <20200319160707.GE3513282@coredump.intra.peff.net>
On 2020-03-19 12:07:07-0400, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
Show 28 quoted lines
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 09:00:05PM +0700, Đoàn Trần Công Danh wrote: > > > Only HEAD's object_id is necessary, rev-list is an overkill. > > > > Despite POSIX requires grep(1) treat single pattern with <newline> > > as multiple patterns. > > busybox's grep(1) (as of v1.31.1) haven't implemented it yet. > > > > Use rev-parse to simplify the test and avoid busybox unimplemented > > features. > > That makes sense. It would also future-proof us against the test > changing the graph such that HEAD actually has ancestors. > > > diff --git a/t/t5616-partial-clone.sh b/t/t5616-partial-clone.sh > > index 77bb91e976..135187c5b5 100755 > > --- a/t/t5616-partial-clone.sh > > +++ b/t/t5616-partial-clone.sh > > @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ test_expect_success 'do partial clone 1' ' > > test_expect_success 'verify that .promisor file contains refs fetched' ' > > ls pc1/.git/objects/pack/pack-*.promisor >promisorlist && > > test_line_count = 1 promisorlist && > > - git -C srv.bare rev-list HEAD >headhash && > > + git -C srv.bare rev-parse HEAD >headhash && > > Maybe worth using "rev-parse --verify" which would double check that we > produced a useful hash (it seems like an unlikely failure mode, but it's > easy enough to cover).
Yeah, I also thought it wasn't expected to be a failure in this case. Using `--verify` doesn't cost anything in this case, though. I will add it in the reroll.
-- Danh