Re: [PATCH 09/12] t4150: am with post-applypatch hook

> On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 11:58 PM, Johannes Schindelin
> <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
>> On 2015-07-02 20:16, Paul Tan wrote:
>>
>>> diff --git a/t/t4150-am.sh b/t/t4150-am.sh
>>> index dd6fe81..62b678c 100755
>>> --- a/t/t4150-am.sh
>>> +++ b/t/t4150-am.sh
>>> @@ -275,6 +275,48 @@ test_expect_success 'am with failing pre-applypatch hook' '
>>>       test_cmp_rev first HEAD
>>>  '
>>>
>>> +test_expect_success 'am with post-applypatch hook' '
>>> +     test_when_finished "rm -f .git/hooks/post-applypatch" &&
>>> +     rm -fr .git/rebase-apply &&
>>> +     git reset --hard &&
>>> +     git checkout first &&
>>> +     mkdir -p .git/hooks &&
>>> +     cat >.git/hooks/post-applypatch <<-\EOF &&
>>> +     #!/bin/sh
>>> +     git rev-parse HEAD >head.actual
>>> +     git diff second >diff.actual
>>> +     exit 0
>>> +     EOF
>>> +     chmod +x .git/hooks/post-applypatch &&
>>> +     git am patch1 &&
>>> +     test_path_is_missing .git/rebase-apply &&
>>> +     test_cmp_rev second HEAD &&
>>> +     git rev-parse second >head.expected &&
>>> +     test_cmp head.expected head.actual &&
>>> +     git diff second >diff.expected &&
>>> +     test_cmp diff.expected diff.actual
>>> +'
>>> +
>>> +test_expect_success 'am with failing post-applypatch hook' '
>>> +     test_when_finished "rm -f .git/hooks/post-applypatch" &&
>>> +     rm -fr .git/rebase-apply &&
>>> +     git reset --hard &&
>>> +     git checkout first &&
>>> +     mkdir -p .git/hooks &&
>>> +     cat >.git/hooks/post-applypatch <<-\EOF &&
>>> +     #!/bin/sh
>>> +     git rev-parse HEAD >head.actual
>>> +     exit 1
>>> +     EOF
>>> +     chmod +x .git/hooks/post-applypatch &&
>>> +     git am patch1 &&
>>> +     test_path_is_missing .git/rebase-apply &&
>>> +     git diff --exit-code second &&
>>> +     test_cmp_rev second HEAD &&
>>> +     git rev-parse second >head.expected &&
>>> +     test_cmp head.expected head.actual
>>> +'
>>
>> These 2 tests as well as the previous patches look to me as if they could be refactored (the paradigm is the same: add a certain hook after resetting and then apply the patch, verify that the hook ran/failed)... do you think there is a chance for that?
> 
> I had a look, but I think that while it is true that the overall
> sequence of each test is the same, the details differ enough that
> there's no obvious way to refactor the tests sensibly. For example,
> the contents of the hook scripts are not the same, as we need to check
> that the hooks are run at the correct stage of git-am execution. And
> as such, the verification tests are also different as well.