Re: [PATCH 1/2] tests: add test case for autocorrect in work tree for bare clone
"Simon Gerber via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
> t/t9005-help-autocorrect-worktree.sh | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Don't we have existing test script for auto-correction? Is it sensible to waste a new fail for this single test? I doubt it.
Perhaps appending after 9003 a new test instead?
Show 18 quoted lines
> diff --git a/t/t9005-help-autocorrect-worktree.sh b/t/t9005-help-autocorrect-worktree.sh
> new file mode 100755
> index 00000000000..4fecc8a8e01
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/t/t9005-help-autocorrect-worktree.sh
> @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
> +#!/bin/sh
> +
> +test_description='test autocorrect in work tree based on bare repository'
> +. ./test-lib.sh
> +
> +test_expect_success 'setup non-bare' '
> + echo one >file &&
> + git add file &&
> + git commit -m one &&
> + echo two >file &&
> + git commit -a -m two
> +'
Wouldn't "test_commit" be simpler to use than rolling our own here? If we piggy-back on set-up in an existing test script, there probably is already a history the single test to attempt running 'git staut' can use. After all, that test does not care an iota what is in the history.
> +
> +test_expect_success 'setup bare' '
> + git clone --bare . bare.git &&
> + cd bare.git
Do not chdir around in a test script, especially in separate steps.
Show 6 quoted lines
> +'
> +
> +test_expect_success 'setup worktree from bare' '
> + git worktree add ../bare-wt &&
> + cd ../bare-wt
> +'
Ditto.
Either do it in a subshell in a single step, or
(
git clone --bare . bare.git &&
cd bare.git &&
git worktree add ../worktree &&
cd ../worktree &&
git -c help.autocorrect=immediate staut
)
use "git -C <over-there>" form, e.g.
git clone --bare . bare.git &&
git -C bare.git worktree add ../worktree &&
git -C worktree -c help.autocorrect=immediate staut
> +test_expect_success 'autocorrect works in work tree created from bare repo' '
When patch 1/2 is applied without 2/2, this test_expect_success will not be satisfied, breaking future bisection.
For a small change like this, have the code change *and* test that verifies the new behaviour in a single step. That way
* you do not break bisection.
* if somebody wants to cherry-pick the fix to an older maintenance
tracks, they can do so by picking a single unit, fix and
verification combined together.
* acceptance or review can be done by checking the end-result and
then tentatively reverting only the code change with something
like
$ git show -- ':!t/' | git apply -R
and see the test that expects success actually fails without the fix.