Jeff King venit, vidit, dixit 13.09.2011 05:57: > On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 03:29:43PM +0200, Michael J Gruber wrote: > >> Jeff King venit, vidit, dixit 09.09.2011 21:43: >>> On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 09:40:59PM +0200, Michael J Gruber wrote: >>> >>>> +test_expect_success 'git branch -v t should work' ' + git branch >>>> -v t && + test .git/refs/heads/t && >>> >>> test -f ? >>> >>> Also, don't we have test_path_is_file which yields slightly prettier >>> output (and maybe some portability benefits; I don't remember)? >>> >>>> + git branch -d t && + test ! -f .git/refs/heads/t >>> >>> Ditto for 'test_path_is_missing' here. >>> >>> -Peff >> >> Well, I tried to follow the surrounding style. That t3200 could benefit >> from some attention, though, which I did not want to mix in with the >> issue at hand. > > The "test_path_is_file" thing is style. But not using "test -f" is just > wrong; you are testing "is .git/refs/heads/t an empty string?" which is > useless. > > You want this on top of what's in mg/branch-list: Yes, sorry. How did I miss that? I'd prefer your style anyway, but also prefer changing t3200 in one go. > > diff --git a/t/t3200-branch.sh b/t/t3200-branch.sh > index c466b20..b513115 100755 > --- a/t/t3200-branch.sh > +++ b/t/t3200-branch.sh > @@ -100,14 +100,14 @@ test_expect_success 'git branch -m q r/q should fail when r exists' ' > > test_expect_success 'git branch -v -d t should work' ' > git branch t && > - test .git/refs/heads/t && > + test -f .git/refs/heads/t && > git branch -v -d t && > test ! -f .git/refs/heads/t > ' > > test_expect_success 'git branch -v -m t s should work' ' > git branch t && > - test .git/refs/heads/t && > + test -f .git/refs/heads/t && > git branch -v -m t s && > test ! -f .git/refs/heads/t && > test -f .git/refs/heads/s && > @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ test_expect_success 'git branch -v -m t s should work' ' > > test_expect_success 'git branch -m -d t s should fail' ' > git branch t && > - test .git/refs/heads/t && > + test -f .git/refs/heads/t && > test_must_fail git branch -m -d t s && > git branch -d t && > test ! -f .git/refs/heads/t > @@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ test_expect_success 'git branch -m -d t s should fail' ' > > test_expect_success 'git branch --list -d t should fail' ' > git branch t && > - test .git/refs/heads/t && > + test -f .git/refs/heads/t && > test_must_fail git branch --list -d t && > git branch -d t && > test ! -f .git/refs/heads/t > > I suspect you didn't notice the bogosity before because those are just > confirming the precondition that "git branch" actually created the file. > > -Peff -- 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