Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Introduce log.showSignature config variable

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jun 23, 2016, 06:32 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqd1n8jtzk.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+DCAeQUJ4D4kjR6FtTibwPO8o+wv-hQNDDj2ysJaBHGTPkHgA@mail.gmail.com>

Mehul Jain <mehul.jain2029@gmail.com> writes:

Show 9 quoted lines

> In patch 2/3 and 3/3, there are many tests which requires a branch
> similar to that of "signed" branch, i.e. a branch with a commit having
> GPG signature. So previously in v2, I created two new branches,
> "test_sign" and "no_sign", which are identical to that of "signed"
> branch. And with these branches, I wrote the tests in patch 2/3
> and 3/3.
>
> As suggested by Eric [1], rather than creating new branches, I
> can take advantage of "signed" branch which already exists.

Yeah, I understand that part. But you do not _need_ to do the split you do in 1/3 in order to reuse "signed".

The first 'log --graph --signature' test may fail, but it is not like that the test without 1/3 removes the "signed" branch when "log" command or the signature tests of its output fail, so "I didn't want the later tests to depend on the first test being successful" does not quite justify the split. If "commit -S" step, which 1/3 splits into the earlier one of the two, fails, then you won't have a signed commit to use in the later tests, even though you have "signed" branch. The split of the tests done by 1/3 does not make the tests more robust. If the commands in the original in the part of the first test in the original that you keep in the first half with 1/3 fail, subsequent tests will be affected with or without 1/3.

If 1/3 justifies the change a bit differently, it would become a good one.

    In 2/3 and 3/3, we will use the same 'signed' branch that the
    first test for 'log --graph --show-signature' uses.  This branch
    is currently created in that 'log --graph --show-signature' test
    itself.

    Split the set-up part into a test of its own, and make the
    existing first test into a separate one that only inspects the
    history on the 'signed' branch.  That way, it would become
    clearer that later tests added by 2/3 and 3/3 reuse the 'signed'
    branch in the same way this 'log --graph --show-signature' uses
    that same branch.

Of course, you would need to keep GPG prerequisite for both halves 1/3 creates.

Thanks.