Re: [PATCH 5/5] t/t5520: test --[no-]autostash with pull.rebase=true

> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Matthieu Moy
> <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> wrote:
>> I think it would be much simpler to drop the loop, and write instead
>> something like (untested):
>
> I tested it (with few minor changes), and worked fine.
>
> test_autostash () {
>         OLDIFS=$IFS
>         IFS='='
>         set -- $*
>         IFS=$OLDIFS
>         expect=$1
>         cmd=$2
>         config_variable=$3
>         value=$4
>         test_expect_success "$cmd, $config_variable=$value"     '
>                 if [ "$value" = "" ]; then
>                         test_unconfig $config_variable
>                 else
>                         test_config $config_variable $value
>                 fi &&
>
>                 git reset --hard before-rebase &&
>                 echo dirty >new_file &&
>                 git add new_file &&
>
>                 if [ $expect = "ok" ]; then
>                         git pull $cmd . copy &&
>                         test_cmp_rev HEAD^ copy &&
>                         test "$(cat new_file)" = dirty &&
>                         test "$(cat file)" = "modified again"
>                 else
>                         test_must_fail git pull $cmd . copy 2>err &&
>                         test_i18ngrep "uncommitted changes." err
>                 fi
>         '
> }
>
> test_autostash ok '--rebase' rebase.autostash=true
> test_autostash ok '--rebase --autostash' rebase.autostash=true
> test_autostash ok '--rebase --autostash' rebase.autostash=false
> test_autostash ok '--rebase --autostash' rebase.autostash=
> test_autostash err '--rebase --no-autostash' rebase.autostash=true
> test_autostash err '--rebase --no-autostash' rebase.autostash=false
> test_autostash err '--rebase --no-autostash' rebase.autostash=
> test_autostash ok '--autostash' pull.rebase=true
> test_autostash err '--no-autostash' pull.rebase=true
>
> Perhaps this looks better than the one with the loop. Even better than
> the implementation in v2[1].
>
> I think it would be wise to go with the above script for v3 (as I will
> be doing a re-roll of the series[1]).