From: phillip.wood123@gmail.com Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2024 20:30:48 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] sequencer: comment checked-out branch properly Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Hi Kristoffer On 31/10/2024 17:25, Kristoffer Haugsbakk wrote: > On Thu, Oct 31, 2024, at 17:30, Phillip Wood wrote: >> The diff below shows a fix and a new test that fails without the >> sequencer changes. The fix is based on master, so it might need >> updating to go on top of Junio's series. The test could probably >> be improved to use the existing setup. > > Thank you! That those lines apparently worked had kind of been > bothering me. It’s nice to get some clarity on the issue. > > But shouldn’t there be a signoff somewhere if I am to incorporate that > diff into the series? Or is the signoff implied? Here's a nicer test case, the key is that we need a conflicting "fixup -C" after a "fixup" otherwise we just end up using the fixup message file which only ever contains a single commit message. Here's my signoff for this and the sequencer changes in my previous mail Signed-off-by: Phillip.Wood Best Wishes Phillip ---- >8 ---- diff --git a/t/t3437-rebase-fixup-options.sh b/t/t3437-rebase-fixup-options.sh index 7929e2e2e3a..a4b90e881e3 100755 --- a/t/t3437-rebase-fixup-options.sh +++ b/t/t3437-rebase-fixup-options.sh @@ -127,6 +127,21 @@ test_expect_success 'fixup -C with conflicts gives correct message' ' test_cmp expected-author actual-author ' +test_expect_success 'conflicting fixup -C after fixup with custom comment string' ' + test_config core.commentString COMMENT && + test_when_finished "test_might_fail git rebase --abort" && + git checkout --detach A3 && + test_must_fail env FAKE_LINES="1 fixup 2 fixup_-C 4" git rebase -i A && + echo resolved >A && + git add A && + FAKE_COMMIT_AMEND=edited git rebase --continue && + test_commit_message HEAD <<-\EOF + A3 + + edited + EOF +' + test_expect_success 'skipping fixup -C after fixup gives correct message' ' test_when_finished "test_might_fail git rebase --abort" && git checkout --detach A3 &&