Re: [PATCH] t1020: cleanup subdirectory tests a little

From: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Date: May 18, 2015, 18:36 UTC
Message-ID: <CAGZ79kZjjKD6J3bQ0SWBUO-6bTY1Ld=Y7mRHVbw+RO5AFN+r5A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqsiatbuwb.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 20 quoted lines

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> writes:
>>
>>> When looking through existing tests to point out good style I came across
>>> t1020, which has a test commented out and the comment wasn't helping me
>>> either of what the test should accomplish in the future. The code of the
>>> test is the same as the test before except setting GIT_DIR=. explicitly,
>>> so it did not ring a bell for me as well.
>>
>> I think this one should be clear, especially if you did notice the
>> one that sets GIT_DIR=. explicitly.  It is saying that "git show -s
>> HEAD" inside the bare repository should be intelligent enough to
>> realize that it is inside bare repository (hence HEAD cannot be a
>> file in the working tree); the user's asking for "HEAD" therefore
>> must mean "the tip commit", and never "(by default the tip commit)
>> filtered to the pathspec HEAD".
>
> I forgot to conclude that sentence: "... and it should be able to do
> so without the help of an explicit GIT_DIR=."

Not sure I follow you there. So currently there are 2 tests having the same name, and doing exactly the same thing, apart from setting the GIT_DIR and one of them being commented out.

So I don't understand, what should be tested *additionally* in the second test, where GIT_DIR is not set. (The naming doesn't hint at testing explicit GIT_DIR, so we test the 'no file/rev ambiguity check inside a bare repo' again.)

Maybe this diff is better for review:

diff --git a/t/t1020-subdirectory.sh b/t/t1020-subdirectory.sh
index 2edb4f2..4470ede 100755
--- a/t/t1020-subdirectory.sh
+++ b/t/t1020-subdirectory.sh
@@ -163,24 +163,15 @@ test_expect_success 'no file/rev ambiguity check
inside .git' '
 '

 test_expect_success 'no file/rev ambiguity check inside a bare repo' '
+ test_when_finished "rm -fr foo.git" &&
  git clone -s --bare .git foo.git &&
  (
  cd foo.git &&
  GIT_DIR=. git show -s HEAD
  )
 '

-# This still does not work as it should...
-: test_expect_success 'no file/rev ambiguity check inside a bare repo' '
- git clone -s --bare .git foo.git &&
- (
- cd foo.git &&
- git show -s HEAD
- )
-'
-
 test_expect_success SYMLINKS 'detection should not be fooled by a symlink' '
- rm -fr foo.git &&
  git clone -s .git another &&
  ln -s another yetanother &&
  (

-- 
2.4.0.194.gc518059



>
>> If it does not still work, shouldn't it be marked as
>> test_expect_failure instead of being commented out?

When commenting in, it doesn't work because
git clone -s --bare .git foo.git fails, as foo.git is already there.

That problem removed it succeeds.