Re: [PATCH 2/4] t6030: explicitly test for bisection cleanup

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

 



Hey Eric,

On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 4:51 AM, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> This is not an improvement in the test coverage but it helps in making
>> it explicit as to what exactly would be the error as other tests are
>> focussed on testing other things.
>
> It's not clear why you consider this as *not* improving test coverage.

My mistake as I forgot to include a comment in this patch. I did it in
the previous patch[1]. I manually changed the file names and saw that
there were a couple of tests failing in each case.

>> Signed-off-by: Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> diff --git 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_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/*")" &&
>
> I wonder if this would be more easily read as:
>
>     git for-each-ref "refs/bisect/*" >actual &&
>     test_must_be_empty actual &&

I just tried to imitate what the test t6030 previously had (a lot of
occurrences). Should I still change it to your specified format?
Should I also change the others as a side cleanup "while I am at it"?

>> +       ! 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"
>
> Is it the intention that these should verify that the files don't
> exist? Maybe use test_path_is_missing() instead?

True. In fact it would be much more appropriate to use
test_path_is_missing() as we are using remove_path() and thus there
shouldn't even exist a file with file size != 0. Thanks!

>> +'
>> +
>>  test_done

[1]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/294520


Regards,
Pranit Bauva
--
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]