Re: Git Test Coverage Report (Friday, Nov 2)
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Nov 3, 2018, 10:03 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqr2g2mqaq.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <1541231868.1028.2.camel@gentoo.org>
Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> writes:
> As for how involved... we'd just have to use a key that has split > signing subkey. Would it be fine to add the subkey to the existing key? > It would imply updating keyids/fingerprints everywhere.
Yes, that "everywhere" is exactly what I meant by "how involved", and your suggestion answers "very much involved".
If we can easily add _another_ key with a subkey that is not the primary one we use for other tests, without touching the existing key and the existing tests that use it (including the one I touched below--- we'd want to see a sig with a key that is not split is shown with the same %GF and %GP), while adding a handful of new tests that create signed objects under the new & split key and view them with %GF and %GP, then the end result would be that we managed to add a new test case where %GF/%GP are different without making very much involved changes. I guess that was what I was getting at.
Thanks.
Show 20 quoted lines
> >> >> t/t7510-signed-commit.sh | 3 ++- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/t/t7510-signed-commit.sh b/t/t7510-signed-commit.sh >> index 19ccae2869..9ecafedcc4 100755 >> --- a/t/t7510-signed-commit.sh >> +++ b/t/t7510-signed-commit.sh >> @@ -176,8 +176,9 @@ test_expect_success GPG 'show good signature with custom format' ' >> 13B6F51ECDDE430D >> C O Mitter <committer@example.com> >> 73D758744BE721698EC54E8713B6F51ECDDE430D >> + 73D758744BE721698EC54E8713B6F51ECDDE430D >> EOF >> - git log -1 --format="%G?%n%GK%n%GS%n%GF" sixth-signed >actual && >> + git log -1 --format="%G?%n%GK%n%GS%n%GF%n%GP" sixth-signed >actual && >> test_cmp expect actual >> ' >>