Re: [PATCH v5 9/9] status: unit tests for --porcelain=v2
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Aug 8, 2016, 17:07 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqq4m6vgpf9.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <1470434434-64283-10-git-send-email-git@jeffhostetler.com>
Jeff Hostetler <git@jeffhostetler.com> writes:
Show 15 quoted lines
> +test_expect_success pre_initial_commit_0 ' > + ... > + git status --porcelain=v2 --branch --untracked-files=normal >actual && > + test_cmp expect actual > +' > + > + > +test_expect_success pre_initial_commit_1 ' > + git add file_x file_y file_z dir1 && > + ... > + cat >expect <<-EOF && > + # branch.oid (initial) > + # branch.head master > + 1 A. N... 000000 100644 100644 $_z40 $OID_A dir1/file_a > + ...
This makes one wonder what would/should be shown on the "A." column if one of these files are added with "-N" (intent-to-add). I do not see any test for such entries in this patch, but I think it should.
> + git status --porcelain=v2 --branch --untracked-files=all >actual && > + test_cmp expect actual > +'
Show 7 quoted lines
> +## Try -z on the above > +test_expect_success pre_initial_commit_2 ' > + lf_to_nul >expect <<-EOF && > + ... > + git status -z --porcelain=v2 --branch --untracked-files=all >actual && > + test_cmp expect actual > +'
"Try -z on the above" can and should be in the test title to help those who are watching the test run. Instead of trying to clarify code with comments, clarify them by letting the code speak for themselves. I would have named the above three perhaps like this:
test_expect_success 'before first commit, nothing added'
test_expect_success 'before first commit, some files added'
test_expect_success 'before first commit, some files added (-z)'"pre-initial-commit-$number" is not very interesting; it does not convey a more interesting aspect of these tests, like (a) _0 is distinct (nothing added) among the three, (b) _1 and _2 are about the same state, just expressed differently, and (c) _1 is LF terminated, _2 is NUL terminated. The same comment applies to the remainder of the test. For example:
Show 5 quoted lines
> +################################################################## > +## Create second commit. > +################################################################## > + > +test_expect_success second_commit_0 '
This "_0" does not tell us anything, but you are testing "When fully committed, we only see untracked files (if we ask) and branch info (if we ask).
Having said all that, it is OK to fix their titles after the current 9-patch series lands on 'next'; incremental refinements are easier on reviewers than having to review too many rerolls.
This is probably a good place to see what happens to these untracked files and branch info if we do not ask the command to show them. Otherwise, it tests exactly the same as "initial_commit_0" and is not all that interesting, no?
Show 17 quoted lines
> +################################################################## > +## Ignore a file > +################################################################## > + > +test_expect_success ignore_file_0 ' > + echo x.ign >.gitignore && > + echo "ignore me" >x.ign && > + H1=$(git rev-parse HEAD) && > + > + ## ignored file SHOULD NOT appear in output when --ignored is not used. > + ... > + git status --porcelain=v2 --branch --untracked-files=all >actual && > + test_cmp expect actual && > + ... > + git status --porcelain=v2 --branch --ignored --untracked-files=all >actual && > + rm x.ign && > + rm .gitignore &&
Arrange these files to be cleaned before you create them by having
test_when_finished "rm -f x.ign .gitignore" &&
at the very beginning of this test before they are created. Otherwise, if any step before these removal fail, later test that assume they are gone will be affected. You already do so correctly in the upstream_fields_0 test below.
Show 30 quoted lines
> +################################################################## > +## Create some conflicts. > +################################################################## > + > +test_expect_success conflict_AA ' > + git branch AA_A master && > + git checkout AA_A && > + echo "Branch AA_A" >conflict.txt && > + OID_AA_A=$(git hash-object -t blob -- conflict.txt) && > + git add conflict.txt && > + git commit -m "branch aa_a" && > + > + git branch AA_B master && > + git checkout AA_B && > + echo "Branch AA_B" >conflict.txt && > + OID_AA_B=$(git hash-object -t blob -- conflict.txt) && > + git add conflict.txt && > + git commit -m "branch aa_b" && > + > + git branch AA_M AA_B && > + git checkout AA_M && > + test_must_fail git merge AA_A && > + > + HM=$(git rev-parse HEAD) && > + > + cat >expect <<-EOF && > + # branch.oid $HM > + # branch.head AA_M > + u AA N... 000000 100644 100644 100644 $_z40 $OID_AA_B $OID_AA_A conflict.txt > + EOF
This is a small point, but doesn't the lowercase 'u' somehow look ugly, especially because the status letters that immediately follow it are all uppercase?
> + git status --porcelain=v2 --branch --untracked-files=all >actual && > + git reset --hard &&
This "reset" also may be a candidate for test_when_finished clean-up (I won't repeat the comment but there probably are many others).
> +test_expect_success 'upstream_fields_0' ' > + git checkout master && > + test_when_finished rm -rf sub_repo &&
The "when-finished" argument are usually quoted like this, I think:
test_when_finished "rm -rf sub_repo" &&