Re: [PATCH 1/2] t1506: more test for @{upstream} syntax

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:50:07AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> > A minor nit, but wouldn't:
> >
> >   int approxidate_careful(const char *str, unsigned long *out);
> >
> > returning an error code be the more usual pattern for a function with
> > error-plus-output (your approxidate wrapper would have to be a function then,
> > not a macro)?
> 
> I don't have strong preference either way; the one in the patch was
> modelled after setup_git_directory_gently(&nongit_ok), and slightly easier
> to work with for existing callers that don't care enough.

Looks like you have already pushed out the original patch, so let's not
worry about it.

> >> +test_expect_success '@{30.years.ago} shows old' '
> >> +	check_at @{30.years.ago} one
> >
> > Side note: I chose this because we needed to go back from the current
> > time beyond where test_tick would place the commit. Which means this
> > test has a 2035 bug. :)
> 
> Can't we use an absolute date, given that test_tick gives fixed timestamp
> sequence to pretend as if we were still in 2005 when we are running these
> tests?
> [...]
> --- a/t/t0101-at-syntax.sh
> +++ b/t/t0101-at-syntax.sh
> @@ -26,8 +26,8 @@ test_expect_success '@{now} shows current' '
>  	check_at @{now} two
>  '
>  
> -test_expect_success '@{30.years.ago} shows old' '
> -	check_at @{30.years.ago} one
> +test_expect_success '@{2001-09-17} (before the first commit) shows old' '
> +	check_at @{2001-09-17} one
>  '
>  
>  test_expect_success 'silly approxidates work' '

Yes, I don't know why I was so concerned with using a relative
approxidate when an absolute one would suffice. However, we should make
a matching change in the silly approxidate entry, too. Like this:

-- >8 --
Subject: [PATCH] t0101: use absolute date

The original version used relative approxidates, which don't
reproduce as reliably as absolute ones. Commit 6c647a fixed
this for one case, but missed the "silly" case.

Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx>
---
 t/t0101-at-syntax.sh |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/t/t0101-at-syntax.sh b/t/t0101-at-syntax.sh
index 5e298c5..a1998b5 100755
--- a/t/t0101-at-syntax.sh
+++ b/t/t0101-at-syntax.sh
@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ test_expect_success '@{2001-09-17} (before the first commit) shows old' '
 '
 
 test_expect_success 'silly approxidates work' '
-	check_at @{3.hot.dogs.and.30.years.ago} one
+	check_at @{3.hot.dogs.on.2001-09-17} one
 '
 
 test_expect_success 'notice misspelled upstream' '
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]