Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
> Sounds good. I remember my implementation being quite complicated;
> let's see how you've done this.
I have to confess that I don't remember the implementation you are
referring to. Maybe I could have taken inspiration from it.
The rest of this message is about tests.
[...]
> Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> diff --git a/t/t3510-cherry-pick-sequence.sh b/t/t3510-cherry-pick-sequence.sh
>> index 2c4c1c85..4d1883b7 100755
>> --- a/t/t3510-cherry-pick-sequence.sh
>> +++ b/t/t3510-cherry-pick-sequence.sh
>> @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
>>
>> test_description='Test cherry-pick continuation features
>>
>> + + conflicting: rewrites unrelated to conflicting
>> + yetanotherpick: rewrites foo to e
>> + anotherpick: rewrites foo to d
>> + picked: rewrites foo to c
>
> Note to self: this list of commits is becoming quite unwieldy. We
> should probably refactor these sometime.
To clarify, "conflicting" is sitting on a separate branch from the
rest of the commits. This --help text uses "git show-branch"-style
output, which is perhaps out of fashion but compact and used by some
existing tests.
>> @@ -27,6 +28,7 @@ test_cmp_rev () {
>> }
>>
>> test_expect_success setup '
>> + git config advice.detachedhead false
>> echo unrelated >unrelated &&
>> git add unrelated &&
>> test_commit initial foo a &&
>
> Huh, why are you moving this line up? Oh, right: there are
> "test_commit" statements in the setup- good catch.
Nah, it's for the pristine_detach, not the test_commit.
I did miss an &&, though. Not enough to justify rerolling on its own
but seems worth fixing if resending anyway.
>> @@ -35,8 +37,8 @@ test_expect_success setup '
>> test_commit picked foo c &&
>> test_commit anotherpick foo d &&
>> test_commit yetanotherpick foo e &&
>> - git config advice.detachedhead false
>> -
>> + pristine_detach initial &&
>> + test_commit conflicting unrelated
>> '
>
> Looks fishy- I wonder why you're doing this. Let's read ahead and find out.
Do you mean that you'd prefer this "conflicting" commit not to be
part of the setup shared between tests?
[...]
>> +test_expect_success '--continue of single revert' '
>> + pristine_detach initial &&
>> + echo resolved >expect &&
>> + echo "Revert \"picked\"" >expect.msg &&
>> + test_must_fail git revert picked &&
>> + echo resolved >foo &&
>> + git add foo &&
>> + git cherry-pick --continue &&
>
> Huh? You're continuing a "git revert" with a a "git cherry-pick
> --continue"?
Yep, works fine.
[...]
> 1. I haven't used the "-s" flag of "git diff-tree" before, so I opened
> up the documentation to find this:
Yeah, that documentation sucks. I'll keep this message marked as a
reminder to look at it.
Just like "git show" is the porcelain command to show a commit, "git
diff-tree" is the corresponding plumbing.
[...]
>> +test_expect_success '--continue after resolving conflicts' '
[...]
> Unchanged from the original: I suspect you've moved the generation of
> expectation messages up to produce a clean diff.
It's just a new test. If rerolling, I'll make it imitate the style of
the existing test following it better.
[...]
>> +test_expect_success '--continue asks for help after resolving patch to nil' '
>> + pristine_detach conflicting &&
>> + test_must_fail git cherry-pick initial..picked &&
>> +
>> + test_cmp_rev unrelatedpick CHERRY_PICK_HEAD &&
>> + git checkout HEAD -- unrelated &&
>> + test_must_fail git cherry-pick --continue 2>msg &&
>> + test_i18ngrep "The previous cherry-pick is now empty" msg
>> +'
>
> I thought it was a bad idea to grep for specific output messages,
> because of their volatile nature?
This test is about --continue asking for help instead of succeeding or
failing in some uncontrolled way, so it seemed useful to check that
the message actually pertains to that.
> Remind me what this test has to do
> with the rest of your patch?
With this change in how --continue works, I wanted to make sure the
semantics that were not supposed to be changed were still intact.
[...]
>> +test_expect_failure 'follow advice and skip nil patch' '
[...]
> Again, what does this test have to do with the rest of your patch?
Likewise.
[...]
>> +test_expect_success '--continue of single-pick respects -x' '
[...]
> I'd have liked s/respects -x/respects opts/ here for symmetry with the
> previous test.
Maybe the previous one should say "respects -x".
I am not sure what it would mean for --continue of a single-pick to
respect --strategy, for example.
>> +test_expect_success '--continue respects -x in first commit in multi-pick' '
[...]
> Can you explain why "first commit in a multi-pick" is a special case?
I guess you mean "how does this differ from the existing '--continue
respects opts' test?".
Good question. In the existing "--continue respects opts" test, we
explicitly run "git commit" before "git cherry-pick --continue". This
test checks that running "git cherry-pick --continue" without
commiting first does not cause the commit message to be clobbered.
[...]
>> @@ -306,6 +413,32 @@ test_expect_success '--signoff is not automatically propagated to resolved confl
>> grep "Signed-off-by:" anotherpick_msg
>> '
>>
>> +test_expect_success '--signoff dropped for implicit commit of resolution, multi-pick case' '
[...]
> Unrelated.
[...]
>> +test_expect_success 'sign-off needs to be reaffirmed after conflict resolution, single-pick case' '
There was no implicit commit of resolution before this patch, so how
can it be unrelated?
[...]
> Thanks for working on this.
Thanks for your attention to detail.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
--
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