git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: [PATCH 1/2] t3507: add a testcase showing failure with sparse checkout

From
Ben Peart <peartben@gmail.com>
Date
Jul 23, 2018, 13:12 UTC
Message-ID
<b56598a1-e543-500a-a39b-cee07fe1e533@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To
<CAPig+cTjQ74gOt8gJbYUBaTRsHBvqtcmucoVdiudFt2TrhCn+g@mail.gmail.com>
On 7/21/2018 3:21 AM, Eric Sunshine wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 2:34 AM Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> wrote:
>> diff --git a/t/t3507-cherry-pick-conflict.sh b/t/t3507-cherry-pick-conflict.sh
>> @@ -392,4 +392,17 @@ test_expect_success 'commit --amend -s places the sign-off at the right place' '
>> +test_expect_failure 'failed cherry-pick with sparse-checkout' '
>> +       pristine_detach initial &&
>> +       git config core.sparseCheckout true &&
> 
> Should this be test_config()?
> 
I think using test_config() here is fine but...
Show 14 quoted lines
>> +       echo /unrelated >.git/info/sparse-checkout &&
>> +       git read-tree --reset -u HEAD &&
>> +       test_must_fail git cherry-pick -Xours picked>actual &&
>> +       test_i18ngrep ! "Changes not staged for commit:" actual &&
>> +       echo "/*" >.git/info/sparse-checkout &&
>> +       git read-tree --reset -u HEAD &&
>> +       git config core.sparseCheckout false &&
> 
> See question above.
> 
>> +       rm .git/info/sparse-checkout
> 
> Should this cleanup be done by test_when_finished()?
> 

I think trying to use test_when_finished() for this really degrades the readability of the test. See below:

test_expect_success 'failed cherry-pick with sparse-checkout' '
	pristine_detach initial &&
	test_config core.sparsecheckout true &&
	echo /unrelated >.git/info/sparse-checkout &&
	git read-tree --reset -u HEAD &&
	test_when_finished "echo \"/*\" >.git/info/sparse-checkout && git 
read-tree --reset -u HEAD && rm .git/info/sparse-checkout" &&
	test_must_fail git cherry-pick -Xours picked>actual &&
	test_i18ngrep ! "Changes not staged for commit:" actual
'

Given it takes multiple commands, I'd prefer to keep the setup and cleanup of the sparse checkout settings symmetrical.

Previous: Eric SunshineNext: Eric Sunshine
Message 11 of 22 in “[BUG] merge-recursive overly aggressive when skipping updating the working tree”
  1. Ben PeartJul 20, 2018
  2. Elijah NewrenJul 20, 2018
  3. Junio C HamanoJul 20, 2018
  4. Elijah NewrenJul 20, 2018
  5. Junio C HamanoJul 20, 2018
  6. Elijah NewrenJul 20, 2018
  7. Ben PeartJul 23, 2018
  8. 0/2 Preserve skip_worktree bit in merges when necessaryElijah Newren, Jul 21, 2018
  9. 1/2 t3507: add a testcase showing failure with sparse checkoutElijah Newren, Jul 21, 2018
  10. Eric SunshineJul 21, 2018
  11. Ben PeartJul 23, 2018
  12. Eric SunshineJul 23, 2018
  13. Ben PeartJul 23, 2018
  14. Ben PeartJul 21, 2018
  15. Junio C HamanoJul 23, 2018
  16. 2/2 merge-recursive: preserve skip_worktree bit when necessaryElijah Newren, Jul 21, 2018
  17. Ben PeartJul 23, 2018
  18. 0/2 Preserve skip_worktree bit in merges when necessaryBen Peart, Jul 27, 2018
  19. 1/2 t3507: add a testcase showing failure with sparse checkoutBen Peart, Jul 27, 2018
  20. 2/2 merge-recursive: preserve skip_worktree bit when necessaryBen Peart, Jul 27, 2018
  21. Junio C HamanoJul 27, 2018
  22. Elijah NewrenJul 31, 2018

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.