# Re: v3 [PATCH 2/2] status:introduce status.branch to enable --branch by default

2 messages from 2013-06-11 to 2013-06-11. Participants: Ramkumar Ramachandra, Matthieu Moy.
Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/34099

## Ramkumar Ramachandra, 2013-06-11 07:30

Subject: Re: v3 [PATCH 2/2] status:introduce status.branch to enable --branch by default
Message-ID: <CALkWK0mQ9e1nR1jBgZKB6hgV+ptEXr225MchsVoM6514-KdqPg@mail.gmail.com>
URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CALkWK0mQ9e1nR1jBgZKB6hgV%2BptEXr225MchsVoM6514-KdqPg%40mail.gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <51b5ede3.41a42a0a.02a1.3464SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com>

```
<y@ensimag.imag.fr> wrote:
> [...]

Good change.

> diff --git a/t/t7508-status.sh b/t/t7508-status.sh
> index 9a07f15..958617a 100755
> --- a/t/t7508-status.sh
> +++ b/t/t7508-status.sh

I expected one test.  Two, at most.  This is a bit overzealous.  I
don't mind leaving it as it is, but as a note for the future: this
kind of overkill is not necessarily a good thing; it makes it hard to
add/remove tests, multiple tests fail when one tiny feature doesn't
work as expected, and the testsuite takes longer to run.

```

## Matthieu Moy, 2013-06-11 07:51

Subject: Re: v3 [PATCH 2/2] status:introduce status.branch to enable --branch by default
Message-ID: <vpqy5ah84pt.fsf@anie.imag.fr>
URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/vpqy5ah84pt.fsf%40anie.imag.fr
In-Reply-To: <CALkWK0mQ9e1nR1jBgZKB6hgV+ptEXr225MchsVoM6514-KdqPg@mail.gmail.com>

```
Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> writes:

> <y@ensimag.imag.fr> wrote:
>> [...]
>
> Good change.
>
>> diff --git a/t/t7508-status.sh b/t/t7508-status.sh
>> index 9a07f15..958617a 100755
>> --- a/t/t7508-status.sh
>> +++ b/t/t7508-status.sh
>
> I expected one test.  Two, at most.  This is a bit overzealous. 

I actually had this discussion with Jorge (in real life). I first
thought this was too much, and I think we already removed one rendundant
test. But actually, this should be "two at least", since you really want
to test whether --[no-]branch takes precedence over status.branch or
not, in addition to testing status.branch alone.

The last two tests are less important, but they also test something (in
short: what happens when branch.status is set to something other than
"true"). So I think it makes sense to keep them.

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/

```