Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] describe: setup working tree for --dirty
- From
Sebastian Staudt <koraktor@gmail.com>
- Date
- Feb 2, 2019, 10:04 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CA+xP2Sa2zLeLg-6pFn9UEufurd=EOOf8UFx3Qh7o0dwzJgN-ag@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAPig+cQgEVJ6OGn9BRUJoALxE7aDCHK308sq7V0EQVRRn6Vn8g@mail.gmail.com>
Am Fr., 1. Feb. 2019 um 21:12 Uhr schrieb Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>:
Show 28 quoted lines
> > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 8:55 AM Sebastian Staudt <koraktor@gmail.com> wrote: > > We don't use NEED_WORK_TREE when running the git-describe builtin, > > since you should be able to describe a commit even in a bare repository. > > However, the --dirty flag does need a working tree. Since we don't call > > setup_work_tree(), it uses whatever directory we happen to be in. That's > > unlikely to match our index, meaning we'd say "dirty" even when the real > > working tree is clean. > > [...] > > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Staudt <koraktor@gmail.com> > > --- > > diff --git a/t/t6120-describe.sh b/t/t6120-describe.sh > > @@ -145,14 +145,38 @@ check_describe A-* HEAD > > +test_expect_success 'describe --dirty with --work-tree' ' > > + [...] > > +' > > > > +test_expect_success 'describe --dirty with --work-tree' ' > > + [...] > > +' > > Can you give these two new tests different titles to make it easier to > narrow down a problem to one or the other if one of them does fail? > Perhaps the second test could be titled: > > test_expect_success 'describe --dirty with dirty --work-tree' ' > > or something.
Thanks, didn‘t notice this. I‘d use a suffix (dirty) for my test titles. But this won‘t work for tests using check_describe(). Any objections?