Re: [PATCH 0/3] Minor fixes on 'git worktree'

From: Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 25, 2016, 12:24 UTC
Message-ID: <CACsJy8D+vyO0LF_A2Wym+PUg=HOTPyDe-1fVwv8zN797pL-rmw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqbmx6nnpg.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 11:52 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 19 quoted lines

> Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy  <pclouds@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> This fixes two things:
>>
>>  - make sure the first item is always the main worktree even if we
>>    fail to retrieve some info
>>
>>  - keep 'worktree list' order stable (which in turn fixes the random
>>    failure on my 'worktree-move' series
>> Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy (3):
>>   worktree.c: zero new 'struct worktree' on allocation
>>   get_worktrees() must return main worktree as first item even on error
>>   worktree list: keep the list sorted
>>
>>  builtin/worktree.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++----
>>  worktree.c         | 20 ++++----------------
>>  2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>
> Any tests?

I discarded the idea of adding test for sorting because it relies on filesystems. A passed test may just mean the filesystem happens to return files in "good" order. But I guess a test wouldn't hurt. Somewhere out there some user may still have a "bad" filesystem and the test could help catch breakage then.

Adding the test for the failed parse_ref() is possible, I think. But since that function is destined to die, as I promised to use refs-provided api instead of rolling out a custom ref parser, and I'm going to have another hard look at refs subsystem for the gc-not-looking-at-worktree-refs problem, may I make another promise to add tests after this function is gone? It should happen "soon".

-- 
Duy