From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 21:30:54 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/27] t1400: Fix name and expected result of one test
Message-ID: <xmqqppl23vjl.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <1395683820-17304-2-git-send-email-mhagger@alum.mit.edu>

Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> writes:

> The test
>
>     stdin -z create ref fails with zero new value
>
> actually passes an empty new value, not a zero new value.  So rename
> the test s/zero/empty/, and change the expected error from
>
>     fatal: create $c given zero new value
>
> to
>
>     fatal: create $c missing <newvalue>

I have a feeling that "zero new value" might have been done by a
non-native (like me) to say "no new value"; "missing newvalue"
sounds like a good phrasing to use.

> Of course, this makes the test fail now, so mark it
> test_expect_failure.  The failure will be fixed later in this patch
> series.

That sounds somewhat strange.  Why not just give a single-liner to
update-ref.c instead?

>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>
> ---
>  t/t1400-update-ref.sh | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/t/t1400-update-ref.sh b/t/t1400-update-ref.sh
> index 6ffd82f..fa927d2 100755
> --- a/t/t1400-update-ref.sh
> +++ b/t/t1400-update-ref.sh
> @@ -827,10 +827,10 @@ test_expect_success 'stdin -z create ref fails with bad new value' '
>  	test_must_fail git rev-parse --verify -q $c
>  '
>  
> -test_expect_success 'stdin -z create ref fails with zero new value' '
> +test_expect_failure 'stdin -z create ref fails with empty new value' '
>  	printf $F "create $c" "" >stdin &&
>  	test_must_fail git update-ref -z --stdin <stdin 2>err &&
> -	grep "fatal: create $c given zero new value" err &&
> +	grep "fatal: create $c missing <newvalue>" err &&
>  	test_must_fail git rev-parse --verify -q $c
>  '