Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] t5574: test porcelain output of atomic fetch

>
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 08:33:11PM +0800, Jiang Xin wrote:
> > From: Jiang Xin <zhiyou.jx@alibaba-inc.com>
> [snip]
> > @@ -91,36 +85,61 @@ test_expect_success 'fetch porcelain output' '
> >       git checkout force-updated &&
> >       git reset --hard HEAD~ &&
> >       test_commit --no-tag force-update-new &&
> > -     FORCE_UPDATED_NEW=$(git rev-parse HEAD) &&
> > -
> > -     cat >expect <<-EOF &&
> > -     - $MAIN_OLD $ZERO_OID refs/forced/deleted-branch
> > -     - $MAIN_OLD $ZERO_OID refs/unforced/deleted-branch
> > -       $MAIN_OLD $FAST_FORWARD_NEW refs/unforced/fast-forward
> > -     ! $FORCE_UPDATED_OLD $FORCE_UPDATED_NEW refs/unforced/force-updated
> > -     * $ZERO_OID $MAIN_OLD refs/unforced/new-branch
> > -       $MAIN_OLD $FAST_FORWARD_NEW refs/forced/fast-forward
> > -     + $FORCE_UPDATED_OLD $FORCE_UPDATED_NEW refs/forced/force-updated
> > -     * $ZERO_OID $MAIN_OLD refs/forced/new-branch
> > -       $MAIN_OLD $FAST_FORWARD_NEW refs/remotes/origin/fast-forward
> > -     + $FORCE_UPDATED_OLD $FORCE_UPDATED_NEW refs/remotes/origin/force-updated
> > -     * $ZERO_OID $MAIN_OLD refs/remotes/origin/new-branch
> > -     EOF
> > -
> > -     # Execute a dry-run fetch first. We do this to assert that the dry-run
> > -     # and non-dry-run fetches produces the same output. Execution of the
> > -     # fetch is expected to fail as we have a rejected reference update.
> > -     test_must_fail git -C porcelain fetch \
> > -             --porcelain --dry-run --prune origin $refspecs >actual &&
> > -     test_cmp expect actual &&
> > -
> > -     # And now we perform a non-dry-run fetch.
> > -     test_must_fail git -C porcelain fetch \
> > -             --porcelain --prune origin $refspecs >actual 2>stderr &&
> > -     test_cmp expect actual &&
> > -     test_must_be_empty stderr
> > +     FORCE_UPDATED_NEW=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
> >  '
> >
> > +for opt in off on
> > +do
> > +     case $opt in
> > +     on)
> > +             opt=--atomic
> > +             ;;
> > +     off)
> > +             opt=
> > +             ;;
> > +     esac
>
> Nit: you could also do `for opt in "--atomic" ""` directly to get rid of
> this case statement. Not sure whether this is worth a reroll though,
> probably not.