Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] t1300: make tests more robust with non-default ref backends

>
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 02:41:17PM +0100, Toon Claes wrote:
> >
> > Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:
> >
> > > [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> > > [1. text/plain]
> > > The t1300 test suite exercises the git-config(1) tool. To do so we
> > > overwrite ".git/config" to contain custom contents. While this is easy
> > > enough to do, it may create problems when using a non-default repository
> > > format because we also overwrite the repository format version as well
> > > as any potential extensions. With the upcoming "reftable" ref backend
> > > the result is that we may try to access refs via the "files" backend
> > > even though the repository has been initialized with the "reftable"
> > > backend.
> > >
> > > Refactor tests which access the refdb to be more robust by using their
> > > own separate repositories, which allows us to be more careful and not
> > > discard required extensions.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
> > > ---
> >
> > > @@ -2009,11 +2020,11 @@ test_expect_success '--show-origin getting a single key' '
> > >  '
> > >
> > >  test_expect_success 'set up custom config file' '
> > > -   CUSTOM_CONFIG_FILE="custom.conf" &&
> > > -   cat >"$CUSTOM_CONFIG_FILE" <<-\EOF
> > > +   cat >"custom.conf" <<-\EOF &&
> > >     [user]
> > >             custom = true
> > >     EOF
> > > +   CUSTOM_CONFIG_FILE="$(test-tool path-utils real_path
> > >  custom.conf)"
> > >  '
> >
> > From the commit message it was not clear to me this change was needed.
> > Do you think it's worth it to add something to the commit message
> > explaining you now need to copy the custom.conf into each seperate
> > repository?
>
> Good point in fact. The problem here is that before, CUSTOM_CONFIG_FILE
> was using a relative path that wouldn't be found when cd'ing into the
> respective subrepositories. By using `path-utils real_path` we resolve
> the relative path to the full path, and thus we can find the file
> regardless of our shell's current working directory.
>
> Not sure whether this is worth a reroll, but in case you or others think
> that it is then I'm happy to add this explanation.