On 04/13, Stefan Beller wrote: > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Brandon Williams <bmwill@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 04/11, Stefan Beller wrote: > >> This was an oversight when working on the working tree modifying commands > >> recursing into submodules. > >> > >> To test for uninitialized submodules, introduce another submodule, that is > >> uninitialized in the actual tests. By adding it to the branch "add_sub1", > >> which is the starting point of all other branches, we have wide coverage. > >> > > ... > > > > > The 'submodule add' command will make the submodule active, so you'll > > need to add in a line to subsequently make the submodule inactive for > > this to work, unless you do in at a later point in time. > > Yes, it will make it active, but that doesn't matter here, because at this > point (in create_lib_submodule_repo) we prepare an upstream > in submodule_update_repo > > Any later test follows the structure of > > prolog && > reset_work_tree_to no_submodule && > ( > cd submodule_update && > # do actual test here, in submodule_update > ) > > Note that 'prolog' performs a clone of submodule_update_repo > to submodule_update, manually setting 'sub1' to active. > > 'uninitialized_sub' is not active. > > I tried to explain it via > To test for uninitialized submodules, introduce another submodule, > that is uninitialized in the actual tests. > in the commit message, but that is too concise apparently. > So the resend will explain that a bit more. Thanks! I just wanted to be sure as you're more familiar with these tests. -- Brandon Williams