From: Phillip Wood Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2021 10:05:01 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] t3403: fix commit authorship Message-ID: <9444dcd0-4733-aed1-0b94-6aa6337552dd@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: On 16/08/2021 17:36, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Phillip Wood 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... Okay lets leave the test as it is then Thanks Phillip