Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] switch: reject if the branch is already checked out elsewhere (test)
- From
Rubén Justo <rjusto@gmail.com>
- Date
- Feb 15, 2023, 22:17 UTC
- Message-ID
- <c4dcfd83-593a-0c91-4f5d-04b172c160f3@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAPig+cQpizjmhmDKb=HPrcYqqRq7JpvC-NZvY7B9eBbG+NrfKw@mail.gmail.com>
On 14-feb-2023 23:17:42, Eric Sunshine wrote:
Show 10 quoted lines
> > +test_expect_success 'switch back when temporarily detached and checked out elsewhere ' ' > > + test_when_finished " > > + git worktree remove wt1 && > > + git worktree remove wt2 && > > + git branch -d shared > > + git checkout - > > + " && > > + git checkout -b shared && > > The test_when_finished() call has an odd mix of &&-chain and missing &&-chain.
Oops, thanks, that was unintentional and hides an error ...
Show 17 quoted lines
> > If you do use &&-chaining inside test_when_finished(), you have to be > careful that _none_ of the cleanup commands fail, otherwise > test_when_finished() itself will fail, making the entire test fail, > _even if_ the test body succeeded. So, &&-chaining the commands in > this test_when_finished() is undesirable since any of the `git > worktree remove` and `git branch -d` commands could potentially fail. > Better would be to drop the &&-chain and ensure that the final command > succeeds. > > It may be a good idea to use `||:` at the end of each command as > documentation for readers that any of the cleanup commands might fail, > which could happen if something in the body of the test fails. > > The `git branch -d shared` cleanup command fails unconditionally > because it's still the checked-out branch in the directory. You need > to swap the `git branch -d shared` and `git checkout -` commands.
... in fact, that needs to be "git branch -D shared" to successfully delete that unmerged branch. Considering also, what you pointed out, swapping the two commands.
About the `||:`, maybe it's a good idea to keep the '&&' and let the test fail if any command fails in the cleanup. However, if that is also part of the test, maybe must not be in the cleanup... so I don't have a strong opinion on that.
I'll wait some time, if there is no argument against the change, I'll reroll with the fix and using '||:' as you suggested.
Thank you for your review and comments.