From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 21:39:28 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/4] format-patch: add '--base' option to record base tree info
Message-ID: <xmqqshydnx0v.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <1461303756-25975-3-git-send-email-xiaolong.ye@intel.com>

Xiaolong Ye <xiaolong.ye@intel.com> writes:

> diff --git a/t/t4014-format-patch.sh b/t/t4014-format-patch.sh
> index eed2981..a6ce727 100755
> --- a/t/t4014-format-patch.sh
> +++ b/t/t4014-format-patch.sh
> @@ -1460,4 +1460,19 @@ test_expect_success 'format-patch -o overrides format.outputDirectory' '
>  	test_path_is_dir patchset
>  '
>  
> +test_expect_success 'format-patch --base' '
> +	git checkout side &&
> +	git format-patch --stdout --base=HEAD~~~ -1 >patch &&
> +	grep -e "^base-commit:" -A3 patch >actual &&
> +	echo "base-commit: $(git rev-parse HEAD~~~)" >expected &&

HEAD~3 would be easier to read (and HEAD~2 is easier than HEAD~~).

> +	echo "prerequisite-patch-id: $(git show --patch HEAD~~ | git patch-id --stable | awk "{print \$1}")" >>expected &&
> +	echo "prerequisite-patch-id: $(git show --patch HEAD~ | git patch-id --stable | awk "{print \$1}")" >>expected &&
> +	test_cmp expected actual
> +'
> +
> +test_expect_success 'format-patch --base error handling' '
> +	! git format-patch --base=HEAD~ -2 &&
> +	! git format-patch --base=HEAD~ -3
> +'

When making sure that "git" exits with a failure in a controlled way
(i.e. you want to consider "git" that segfaults as not passing the
test), do not use "! git cmd", but use "test_must_fail git cmd"
instead.

You now have a quite elaborate logic in base validation in this
round.  Is the topology of the history used in this test still
complex enough to make sure the logic is being tested?