Re: [PATCH v2] add test to demonstrate that shallow recursive clones fail

> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 1:37 AM,  <larsxschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
>> From: Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@gmail.com>
>> 
>> "git clone --recursive --depth 1 --single-branch <url>" clones the
>> submodules successfully. However, it does not obey "--depth 1" for
>> submodule cloning.
>> 
>> The following workaround does only work if the used submodule pointer
>> is on the default branch. Otherwise "git submodule update" fails with
>> "fatal: reference is not a tree:" and "Unable to checkout".
>> git clone --depth 1 --single-branch <url>
>> cd <repo-name>
>> git submodule update --init --recursive --depth 1
>> 
>> The workaround does not fail using the "--remote" flag. However, in that
>> case the wrong commit is checked out.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@gmail.com>
>> ---
> 
> Thanks for writing these tests. :)

> 
>> +test_expect_failure shallow-clone-recursive-workaround '
>> +       URL="file://$(pwd | sed "s/[[:space:]]/%20/g")/repo" &&
>> +       echo $URL &&
>> +       git clone --depth 1 --single-branch $URL clone-recursive-workaround &&
>> +       (
>> +               cd "clone-recursive-workaround" &&
>> +               git log --oneline >lines &&
>> +               test_line_count = 1 lines &&
>> +               git submodule update --init --recursive --depth 1
> 
> Should we prepend the lines with git submodule update with test_must_fail here?

> 
>> +       )
>> +'
>> +
>> +test_expect_failure shallow-clone-recursive-with-remote-workaround '
>> +       URL="file://$(pwd | sed "s/[[:space:]]/%20/g")/repo" &&
>> +       echo $URL &&
>> +       git clone --depth 1 --single-branch $URL clone-recursive-remote-workaround &&
>> +       (
>> +               cd "clone-recursive-remote-workaround" &&
>> +               git log --oneline >lines &&
>> +               test_line_count = 1 lines &&
>> +               git submodule update --init --remote --recursive --depth 1 &&
>> +               git status submodule >status &&
>> +               test_must_fail grep "modified:" status
> 
> Use ! here instead of test_must_fail.
> 
> IIUC we use test_must_fail for git commands (to test that git does
> return a non null value instead of segfaulting).
> But on the other hand we trust grep to not segfault, so just negating
> its output is enough here.