Re: [PATCH 1/2] submodule: ignore trailing slash on superproject URL

From: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>
Date: Oct 17, 2016, 19:32 UTC
Message-ID: <2aa41392-a7ed-cd48-2737-bd852757ab35@kdbg.org>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqfunvxxgu.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

Am 17.10.2016 um 09:10 schrieb Junio C Hamano:

Show 15 quoted lines

> And I agree from that point of view that having to spell both sides
> as $(pwd) would mean you are not testing that "Unixy input to
> Windowsy output" expectation, but at the same time, I think you
> would want "Windowsy input to Windowsy output" combination also does
> produce correct result, which is not tested in the three tests shown
> above.  IOW, probably you would want to test both (at least on any
> platform where $PWD and $(pwd) textually disagree) for all these
> [*1*], and the pair
>
>     "../." taken relative to "$(pwd)/." must be "$(pwd)/."
>     "../." taken relative to "$PWD/." must be "$(pwd)/."
>
> test, because of the limitation of your bash, cannot have the latter
> half of the pair, so you'd need to comment it out with in-code
> explanation, perhaps?

No, we do not have to test both cases. Git, the program, never sees Unixy input. It cannot distinguish the two cases. If we did both tests, we would just test that *if* the front-end of git is an MSYS program (such as bash), *then* that MSYS front-end has converted the Unixy path to a Windows-y path in such a way that the end-result is also as expected. It's similar to a test that grep produces expected output.

I think that we could reduce the confusion by converting all $PWD to $(pwd) in these test cases. I don't remember why I suggested to use $PWD for one of the arguments of the test cases (the second must be $(pwd)), but the most likely reason is only that we save a process.

-- Hannes