Re: [PATCH 1/7] test: add merge style config test
- From
- Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jun 10, 2021, 14:54 UTC
- Message-ID
- <a819dd7d-e690-baa7-b6c8-2b1fabe51522@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <60c2130178831_b25b1208f5@natae.notmuch>
On 10/06/2021 14:26, Felipe Contreras wrote:
Show 27 quoted lines
> Phillip Wood wrote: >> On 09/06/2021 20:28, Felipe Contreras wrote: >>> We want to test different combinations of merge.conflictstyle, and a new >>> file is the best place to do that. >> >> I'm not sure what this particular tests adds over the existing ones in >> t6427-diff3-conflict-markers.sh. > > That file is for diff3 conflict markers. The tests in this file are not. > >> The commit message does not explain why a new file is better than >> adding this test to that file. > > Because there's no file that is testing for this. > >> There are already diff3 tests for checkout > > This file is not doing diff3 tests. > > > As stated above, it's testing different *combinations* of > merge.conflictstyle, diff3 is only *one* of the possibilities, another > possibility is: > > git -c merge.conflictstyle=diff3 checkout -m --conflict=merge > > That is *not* a diff3 test.
I think that is an artificial distinction, it is testing the behavior of checkout when merge.conflictStyle=diff3 just like the other tests, it just happens to be checking that the config option can be combined with a command line option.
Best Wishes
Phillip
Show 35 quoted lines
>>> diff --git a/t/t6440-config-conflict-markers.sh b/t/t6440-config-conflict-markers.sh >>> new file mode 100755 > >>> +test_expect_success 'merge' ' >>> + test_create_repo merge && >>> + ( >>> + cd merge && >>> + >>> + fill 1 2 3 >content && >>> + git add content && >>> + git commit -m base && >>> + >>> + git checkout -b r && >>> + echo six >>content && >>> + git commit -a -m right && >>> + >>> + git checkout master && >>> + echo 7 >>content && >>> + git commit -a -m left && >>> + >>> + test_must_fail git merge r && >>> + ! grep -E "\|+" content && >> >> ! grep "|" would be simpler and just as effective. > > But that would fail if there's a "command1 | command2". > >> This is quite a weak >> test, something like "^|||||| " would be a stronger test for conflict >> markers > > But that doesn't work in all the tests. > > Cheers. >