Re: [PATCH 2/4] builtin/history: check for merges before asking for user input

From: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Date: Feb 13, 2026, 05:51 UTC
Message-ID: <aY670nh0ElOZU46j@pks.im>
In-Reply-To: <CALnO6CCciWF_GOd3WqOVwUDLoPRABNgDWbSu7FTgP8KLWQKvgQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 05:20:08PM -0500, D. Ben Knoble wrote:

Show 21 quoted lines

> On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 7:45 AM Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> wrote:
> > diff --git a/t/t3451-history-reword.sh b/t/t3451-history-reword.sh
> > index 6775ed62f9..12a9a7d051 100755
> > --- a/t/t3451-history-reword.sh
> > +++ b/t/t3451-history-reword.sh
> > @@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ test_expect_success 'can reword a merge commit' '
> >
> >                 # It is not possible to replay merge commits embedded in the
> >                 # history (yet).
> > -               test_must_fail git history reword HEAD~ 2>err &&
> > +               test_must_fail git -c core.editor=false history reword HEAD~ 2>err &&
> >                 test_grep "replaying merge commits is not supported yet" err &&
> >
> >                 # But it is possible to reword a merge commit directly.
> 
> Hm, I don't quite see how "false" tests that we don't invoke the
> editor at all, though I'm not sure if that behavior should be encoded
> in the test or not. (Looks like Junio noticed the same in 1/4; I'm
> getting better at reading my mail before sending, sometimes… :)
> 
> Otherwise looks good!

As replied in the other thread, this would abort with "Aborting commit as launching the editor failed." if Git tried to execute the editor.

I'm not quite sure whether I get the other remark about "should be encoded in the test or not". Do you mean to say we should use a separate test?

Patrick