Show 38 quoted lines
> Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I wonder if it would be better to hard code the author in this test rather
>> than rather than relying on git log like this
>
> To be quite honest, I am pretty happy with the tests as posted, and
> the choice among various ways we are discussing depends on what the
> likely mode of breakage we expect.
>
> The breakage we are expecting to catch in the second hunk of your
> patch is somehow "rebase -i" fails to keep the authorship of
> amended-goodbye and ends up making the commit at HEAD under
> different authorship.
>
> - A likely source of a different authorship information that would
> be recorded, when such a bug gets introduced, is from the
> environment (i.e. GIT_AUTHOR_NAME etc. that test-lib.sh sets up).
> This can happen by a new bug in the test added before the second
> hunk of your patch we see below, and with or without this patch,
> such a bug in the test will not be caught.
>
> - Or amended-goodbye may by a test bug have been recorded under a
> wrong authorship information to begin with, and if it were done
> as the default author we use in our tests (i.e. the bug you fixed
> in your patch that started this thread). If we reintroduced such
> a bug, the second hunk of this patch will help.
>
> - Or the variable $another_author gets clobbered in a future change
> between the two hunks of this patch, and the check in the second
> hunk would be broken.
>
> Overall, I do not think any of the above breakage is so likely to
> happen, and that is why I am happy with the tests as posted. The
> necessity for a plain shell variable to retain its value for such a
> long haul across tests the patch below introduces may be making the
> test more brittle than safer.
>
> So...