From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 09:24:16 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] log: test for regression introduced in v1.7.2-rc0~103^2~2 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7v39uggs5h.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 09:08, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes: > >> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 01:10, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >>> Add a regression test for the git log -M --follow --name-only bug >>> introduced in v1.7.2-rc0~103^2~2 >> >> AKA "we didn't have any tests for log's --name-only *at all*". > > But this is not related to --name-only at all; anything that is "diff" > related, e.g. -p, --stat, --name-status, will share the same issue. I meant that as an extra benefit this is the first test for log + --name-only. >> diff --git a/t/t4202-log.sh b/t/t4202-log.sh >> index 95ac3f8..ff624f4 100755 >> --- a/t/t4202-log.sh >> +++ b/t/t4202-log.sh >> @@ -441,5 +441,14 @@ test_expect_success 'log.decorate configuration' ' >> >>  ' >> >> +test_expect_success 'Regression test for v1.7.2-rc0~103^2~2' ' > > This is uninformative and ugly at the same time. > >  - Can't we describe the nature of the situation where the old bug >   triggers concisely?  Perhaps 'show added path under "--follow -M"?' I didn't grok why this was happening, but yeah, that description is better. >> +     # Needs an unrelated root commit >> +     test_commit README && > > This is not a "root" commit, is it? s/root/first/ >> +     >Foo.bar && >> +     git add Foo.bar && >> +     git commit --allow-empty-message > Does emptiness of the message matter? No, I was just going for a minimal test case, no commit message is more minimal than having one.