patcht6030: explicitly test for bisection cleanup

> This is not an improvement in the test coverage but it helps in making
> it explicit as to know what exactly is the error as other tests are
> focussed on testing other things but they do indirectly test for this.
>
> Mentored-by: Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@gmail.com>
> Mentored-by: Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>
> Signed-off-by: Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@gmail.com>
>
> ---
> I faced this problem while converting `bisect_clean_state` and the tests
> where showing breakages but it wasn't clear as to where exactly are they
> breaking. This will patch  will help in that. Also I tested the test
> coverage of the test suite before this patch and it covers this (I did
> this by purposely changing names of files in git-bisect.sh and running
> the test suite).
>
> Signed-off-by: Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@gmail.com>
> ---
>  t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh b/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh
> index e74662b..1fb5ad9 100755
> --- a/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh
> +++ b/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh
> @@ -894,4 +894,21 @@ test_expect_success 'bisect start takes options and revs in any order' '
>         test_cmp expected actual
>  '
>
> +test_expect_success 'git bisect reset cleans bisection state properly' '
> +       git bisect reset &&
> +       git bisect start &&
> +       git bisect good $HASH1 &&
> +       git bisect bad $HASH4 &&
> +       git bisect reset &&
> +       test -z "$(git for-each-ref "refs/bisect/*")" &&
> +       ! test -s "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_EXPECTED_REV" &&
> +       ! test -s "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_ANCESTORS_OK" &&
> +       ! test -s "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_LOG" &&
> +       ! test -s "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_RUN" &&
> +       ! test -s "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_TERMS" &&
> +       ! test -s "$GIT_DIR/head-name" &&
> +       ! test -s "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_HEAD" &&
> +       ! test -s "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_START"
> +'
> +
>  test_done
> --
> 2.8.2
>

> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Anyone any comments?
>
> Maybe you could add this patch to, or squash it into, the patch that
> convert bisect_clean_state to C.