From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 05:55:52 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/11] tests: at-combinations: improve nonsense()
Message-ID: <7v8v3qgglz.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <1367963711-8722-4-git-send-email-felipe.contreras@gmail.com>

Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:

> In some circumstances 'git log' might fail, but not because the @
> parsing failed. For example: 'git rev-parse' might succeed and return a
> bad object, and then 'git log' would fail.
>
> The layer we want to test is revision parsing, so let's test that
> directly.

Hmph, but

	git rev-parse Makefile

would happily succeed if there happens to be Makefile in the
directory.

Are we expecting that they are always object names?  If that is the
case, perhaps

	git rev-parse --verify "$1"

would express the intention better.

> Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
> ---
>  t/t1508-at-combinations.sh | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/t/t1508-at-combinations.sh b/t/t1508-at-combinations.sh
> index bd2d2fe..2ea735e 100755
> --- a/t/t1508-at-combinations.sh
> +++ b/t/t1508-at-combinations.sh
> @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ test_expect_${4:-success} "$1 = $3" "
>  }
>  nonsense() {
>  test_expect_${2:-success} "$1 is nonsensical" "
> -	test_must_fail git log -1 '$1'
> +	test_must_fail git rev-parse '$1'
>  "
>  }
>  fail() {