Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ...
>> +# B
>> +# o
>> +# / \
>> +# A o ?
>> +# \ /
>> +# o
>> +# C
>> + ...
>> +# Testcase 1a, Basic directory rename.
>> +# Commit A: z/{b,c}
>> +# Commit B: y/{b,c}
>> +# Commit C: z/{b,c,d,e/f}
>
> (minor thought:)
> After rereading the docs above this is clear; I wonder if instead of A, B, C
> a notation of Base, ours, theirs would be easier to understand?
I had a similar thought, but as long as everything in this file is
consistent, as we have that picture upfront, I am OK with it. FWIW,
t1000 uses O (original--common ancestor) A and B, which was the
notation commonly used in our codebase since the early days when we
needed to call them with single letters.
>> +test_expect_success '1a-setup: Simple directory rename detection' '
>> +test_expect_failure '1a-check: Simple directory rename detection' '
>
> Thanks for splitting the setup and the check into two different test cases!
>
>
>> + git checkout B^0 &&
>
> Any reason for ^0 ? (to make clear it is a branch?)
I think it is to make it clear that no matter what this test does
(or fails to do), the branch B is *not* affected by it because we'd
be playing on a detached head.
>> +test_expect_success '1b-setup: Merge a directory with another' '
>> + git rm -rf . &&
>> + git clean -fdqx &&
>> + rm -rf .git &&
>> + git init &&
>
> This is quite a strong statement to start a test with.
Yes. If a test before this one did cd ../.. and forgot to come
back, we'd be in trouble. If we want a fresh repository perhaps
test-create-repo inside the trash repository may be a less evil
option.
