Re: [PATCH v2 05/21] t6030: generalize test to not rely on current implementation

From: Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@web.de>
Date: Apr 10, 2016, 13:47 UTC
Message-ID: <570A596F.9080200@web.de>
In-Reply-To: <1460294354-7031-6-git-send-email-s-beyer@gmx.net>

On 10.04.16 15:18, Stephan Beyer wrote: Some nit-comments inline

Show 10 quoted lines

> ---
>  t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh | 167 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
>  1 file changed, 85 insertions(+), 82 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh b/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh
> index 05bc639..645ccd9 100755
> --- a/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh
> +++ b/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh
> @@ -10,36 +10,34 @@ exec </dev/null
> +	if [ -f "$_file" ]; then

I know that the old code did the same, is there a chance
to adopt to the git-style:
	if test -f "$_file" ; then

> +		echo "$_line" >> $_file || return $?

[]

Show 12 quoted lines

> +test_expect_success '"git bisect run" simple case' '
> +	echo "#"\!"/bin/sh" > test_script.sh &&
> +	echo "grep Another hello > /dev/null" >> test_script.sh &&
> +	echo "test \$? -ne 0" >> test_script.sh &&
> +	chmod +x test_script.sh &&
> +	git bisect start &&
> +	git bisect good $HASH1 &&
> +	git bisect bad $HASH4 &&
> +	git bisect run ./test_script.sh > my_bisect_log.txt &&
> +	grep "$HASH3 is the first bad commit" my_bisect_log.txt &&
> +	git bisect reset
> +'

Portabily: Since yesterday/yesterweek the usage of hard-coded #!/bin/sh had shown to be problematic Junio posted an update like this: - printf "#!/bin/sh\n" >diff && - printf "printf \"\$GIT_PREFIX\"" >>diff && - chmod +x diff && + write_script diff <<-\EOF && + printf "%s" "$GIT_PREFIX" + EOF

(Same for the scripts below)

Show 5 quoted lines

>
> +test_expect_success '"git bisect run" with more complex "git bisect start"' '
> +	echo "#"\!"/bin/sh" > test_script.sh &&
> +	echo "grep Ciao hello > /dev/null" >> test_script.sh &&
> +	echo "test \$? -ne 0" >> test_script.sh &&

Style nit, please no ' ' after ">>": echo "test \$? -ne 0" >>test_script.sh &&

(and more below)