From: Stefan Beller Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 16:39:23 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/12] t5520: check reflog action in fast-forward merge Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1430988248-18285-13-git-send-email-pyokagan@gmail.com> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 1:44 AM, Paul Tan wrote: > When testing a fast-forward merge with git-pull, check to see if the > reflog action is "pull" with the arguments passed to git-pull. > > While we are in the vicinity, remove the empty line as well. > > Signed-off-by: Paul Tan > --- > > Notes: > * Added this test to the patch series. > > t/t5520-pull.sh | 13 ++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/t/t5520-pull.sh b/t/t5520-pull.sh > index b93b735..6045491 100755 > --- a/t/t5520-pull.sh > +++ b/t/t5520-pull.sh > @@ -86,7 +86,6 @@ test_expect_success 'pulling into void must not create an octopus' ' > ' > > test_expect_success 'test . as a remote' ' > - > git branch copy master && > git config branch.copy.remote . && > git config branch.copy.merge refs/heads/master && > @@ -95,7 +94,11 @@ test_expect_success 'test . as a remote' ' > git checkout copy && > test `cat file` = file && > git pull && > - test `cat file` = updated > + test `cat file` = updated && same as in patch 1 > + git reflog -1 >reflog.actual && > + sed "s/$_x05[0-9a-f]*/OBJID/g" reflog.actual >reflog.fuzzy && > + echo "OBJID HEAD@{0}: pull: Fast-forward" >reflog.expected && > + test_cmp reflog.expected reflog.fuzzy > ' > > test_expect_success 'the default remote . should not break explicit pull' ' > @@ -106,7 +109,11 @@ test_expect_success 'the default remote . should not break explicit pull' ' > git reset --hard HEAD^ && > test `cat file` = file && > git pull . second && > - test `cat file` = modified > + test `cat file` = modified && > + git reflog -1 >reflog.actual && > + sed "s/$_x05[0-9a-f]*/OBJID/g" reflog.actual >reflog.fuzzy && > + echo "OBJID HEAD@{0}: pull . second: Fast-forward" >reflog.expected && > + test_cmp reflog.expected reflog.fuzzy > ' > > test_expect_success 'fail if wildcard spec does not match any refs' ' > -- > 2.1.4 > The series looks good to me apart from the minor nits. Thanks, Stefan