Re: When to use test_commit (Re: [PATCH] checkout: add a test for creating a new branch with regexp as a starting point)
- From
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jul 30, 2010, 20:20 UTC
- Message-ID
- <AANLkTimeQA2_fQ_f2pQchbo1coj3=mV9TRPnbET8SQ4F@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20100730191357.GA2448@burratino>
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 19:13, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 6 quoted lines
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > >> And actually, we should probably have a >> test_commit_notag() then. > > I don’t know. What’s so bad about using "git commit" directly?
Nothing, it's just easier to write and read the tests when we have and use functions for these common operations.
Show 10 quoted lines
> I often find myself using "git commit" in tests because test_commit > imposes all the usual restrictions for a ref name on the commit > message. I would happily use an abbreviation for > > test_tick && > git commit -m "something" && > git tag something-else > > if available because I don’t like typing, but would that help the > reader and test runner any?
Maybe just introduce a fourth argument to test_commit, to make it <message> [<file> [<contents> [<tagname>]] instead of <message> [<file> [<contents>]] ?