On 11/24, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > diff --git a/t/t2025-worktree-add.sh b/t/t2025-worktree-add.sh
> > index b5c47ac602..53042ce565 100755
> > --- a/t/t2025-worktree-add.sh
> > +++ b/t/t2025-worktree-add.sh
> > @@ -313,5 +313,60 @@ test_expect_success 'checkout a branch under bisect' '
> > test_expect_success 'rename a branch under bisect not allowed' '
> > test_must_fail git branch -M under-bisect bisect-with-new-name
> > '
> > +# Is branch "refs/heads/$1" set to pull from "$2/$3"?
> > +test_branch_upstream () {
> > + printf "%s\n" "$2" "refs/heads/$3" >expect.upstream &&
> > + {
> > + git config "branch.$1.remote" &&
> > + git config "branch.$1.merge"
> > + } >actual.upstream &&
> > + test_cmp expect.upstream actual.upstream
> > +}
>
> OK.
>
> > +test_expect_success '--track sets up tracking' '
> > + test_when_finished rm -rf track &&
> > + git worktree add --track -b track track master &&
> > + git config "branch.track.merge" &&
> > + (
> > + test_branch_upstream track . master
> > + )
> > +'
>
> Is this "git config" necessary, or is it a remnant of a debugging
> session? It is tested in the helper that branch.track.merge is set
> to something, and otherwise the helper would fail the same way as
> this standalnoe "git config" would, no?
It's a remnant of a debugging session, sorry. It would indeed fail in
the same way, so just leaving the 'test_branch_upstream' is enough.
Also looking at that, there's no need for it to be in a subshell, will
fix that as well.
> > +# setup remote repository $1 and repository $2 with $1 set up as
> > +# remote. The remote has two branches, master and foo.
> > +setup_remote_repo () {
> > + git init $1 &&
> > + (
> > + cd $1 &&
> > + test_commit $1_master &&
> > + git checkout -b foo &&
> > + test_commit upstream_foo
> > + ) &&
> > + git init $2 &&
> > + (
> > + cd $2 &&
> > + test_commit $2_master &&
> > + git remote add $1 ../$1 &&
> > + git config remote.$1.fetch \
> > + "refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/$1/*" &&
> > + git fetch --all
> > + )
> > +}
> > +
> > +test_expect_success '--no-track avoids setting up tracking' '
> > + test_when_finished rm -rf repo_upstream repo_local foo &&
> > + setup_remote_repo repo_upstream repo_local &&
> > + (
> > + cd repo_local &&
> > + git worktree add --no-track -b foo ../foo repo_upstream/foo
> > + ) &&
> > + (
> > + cd foo &&
> > + ! test_branch_upstream foo repo_upstream foo &&
>
> It is true that this test helper must yield failure. But what you
> expect probably is more than that, no? For example, the test helper
> would fail even if branch.foo.remote is set to the upstream as long
> as branch.foo.merge is not set to point at their foo, but what you
> really want to make sure is that neither configuration variable is
> set.
Yeah you're right, this test is a bit too loose. Will fix that in the
re-roll. Thanks!
> > + git rev-parse repo_upstream/foo >expect &&
> > + git rev-parse foo >actual &&
> > + test_cmp expect actual
> > + )
> > +'
> >
> > test_done
