Re: Re*: Segfault in git when using git logs
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Nov 4, 2020, 20:16 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqq361onahn.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20201104194155.GA3060815@coredump.intra.peff.net>
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
Show 13 quoted lines
>> +# Basic command line option parsing >> +test_expect_success '-L is incompatible with pathspec' ' >> + # This may fail due to "no such path a.c in commit", >> + # or "-L is incompatible with pathspec". Either is acceptable. >> + test_must_fail git log -L1,1:a.c -- a.c && > > This test confuses me. What are we looking for here? Presumably we'd > fail with: > > git log -L1,1:a.c > > too. If the test were "basic command line parsing", I could see checking > that. But that's only what the comment says.
Yeah, I was undecided to have a single test that covers all (which I ended up with) or a sequence of individual tests (which I wrote on the title).
Show 5 quoted lines
>> + # This must fail due to "-L is incompatible with pathspec". >> + test_must_fail git log -L1,1:b.c -- b.c && > > Right, this is what we fixed. Would using test_i18ngrep on the stderr be > better than the comment?
I do not care either way myself ;-)
Show 14 quoted lines
>> + # These must fail due to "follow requires one pathspec". >> + test_must_fail git log -L1,1:b.c --follow && >> + test_must_fail git log --follow -L1,1:b.c && > > These are really tests of --follow, but I don't mind seeing them here as > reinforcement for the concepts that the commit message claims. > >> + # This may fail due to "-L is incompatible with pathspec", >> + # or "-L is incompatible with pathspec". Either is acceptable. >> + test_must_fail git log --follow -L1,1:b.c -- b.c > > Should one of those be "-L is incompatible with --follow"? Though of > course we did not add such a check, so we know that it will be "-L is > incompatible with pathspec", even without the --follow.
The comment seems utterly wrong here. I may reroll after taking a nap or something ;-)