From: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2016 23:21:12 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] t6030: explicitly test for bisection cleanup
Message-ID: <CAPig+cRxGAR8s_Yn7EmCs0zQe2=F7RnhSw+0mtiZOfJtFkD_FQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20160607205454.22576-2-pranit.bauva@gmail.com>

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is not an improvement in the test coverage but it helps in making
> it explicit as to what exactly would be the error as other tests are
> focussed on testing other things.

It's not clear why you consider this as *not* improving test coverage.

> Signed-off-by: Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@gmail.com>
> ---
> diff --git a/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh b/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh
> @@ -894,4 +894,21 @@ test_expect_success 'bisect start takes options and revs in any order' '
> +test_expect_success 'git bisect reset cleans bisection state properly' '
> +       git bisect reset &&
> +       git bisect start &&
> +       git bisect good $HASH1 &&
> +       git bisect bad $HASH4 &&
> +       git bisect reset &&
> +       test -z "$(git for-each-ref "refs/bisect/*")" &&

I wonder if this would be more easily read as:

    git for-each-ref "refs/bisect/*" >actual &&
    test_must_be_empty actual &&

> +       ! test -s "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_EXPECTED_REV" &&
> +       ! test -s "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_ANCESTORS_OK" &&
> +       ! test -s "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_LOG" &&
> +       ! test -s "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_RUN" &&
> +       ! test -s "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_TERMS" &&
> +       ! test -s "$GIT_DIR/head-name" &&
> +       ! test -s "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_HEAD" &&
> +       ! test -s "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_START"

Is it the intention that these should verify that the files don't
exist? Maybe use test_path_is_missing() instead?

> +'
> +
>  test_done