On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Eddy Petrișor <eddy.petrisor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> This patch only contains the test, I presume this goes on top of >> https://public-inbox.org/git/20180403222053.23132-1-eddy.petrisor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >> which you plan to later submit as one patch including both the change as well as >> the test. > > Yes, not sure why the emails were not linked together, I specified the > in-reply-to mesage id when I "git format-patch"-ed the patches. They are linked in public-inbox, but I noticed too late. (in gmail they were not) > Thanks for the pointer, I only looked at the post-failure state after > adding --debug -i --verbose, but having "test_pause" to stop and > inspect the interim stage should help a lot with debugging. I also like the -x flag that stops at the failing test, but as this is the last test of this script it is of limited use here. > After looking at other tests I was under the impression that the setup > phase (e.g. creating the "server" side repos) of the test was done in > the main context, while the test case (i.e. the client side, or what > the user would do) is in subshells. This roughly coincides, as the client is usually in a new clone. :) >> style: The Git test suite prefers to have the redirect adjacent to the >> file name: >> echo hello >world > > I wasn't aware of that, it seems there are some inconsistencies, > including in the modified test: > > eddy@feodora:~/usr/src/git/t$ grep '> ' -c t* 2>/dev/null | grep -v > ':0$' | grep 7406 > t7406-submodule-update.sh:24 > eddy@feodora:~/usr/src/git/t$ grep '> ' -c t* 2>/dev/null | grep -v > ':0$' | wc -l > 325 Thanks for digging up numbers! > I suspect that a minor patch correcting these inconsistencies would be > faily fast reviewed adn accepted, of course, disconnected from this > modification. There are two schools of thought, one of them is to fix things up whenever you see fit. I am very sympathetic to this one. The other is found in Documentation/CodingGuidelines: - Fixing style violations while working on a real change as a preparatory clean-up step is good, but otherwise avoid useless code churn for the sake of conforming to the style. "Once it _is_ in the tree, it's not really worth the patch noise to go and fix it up." Cf. http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1001.3/01069.html > Yes, I was trying to replicate the redox-os case which has this structure: > > redox-os (master branch) > + rust (@some commit on a non-default) > + src/llvm (@some commit on a non-default branch) > > This section is making sure the b2 branch has other content than the > default one and setting the expectation for level2 submodule branch, > later. Oh, cool! > >>>> + git rev-parse --verify HEAD >../expectl1 && >>>> + git checkout master && >> >> We go back to master, which doesn't have the nested submodule? > > exactly, since the desired behaviour is to have in the nested > submodule the b2 branch. Well if the nested submodule doesn't exist at HEAD, then git should not change branches in there, only on checking out/ updating to a state that has the nested sub? (I may missunderstand things here) > I guess I could have added the level2 submodule@master on l1's master > branch, but I didn't see much point in that since it should be enough > now. > > It might make more sense if master and b2, and, respectively master > and l1 have diverging histories, but for now that is probably overkill > and it will make sense in the context of shallow cloning of > submodules, which I haven't yet tackled except presenting the idea. ok. > >>>> + cd ../super5 && >>>> + echo super_with_2_chained_modules > super5 && >>>> + git add super5 && >>>> + test_tick && >>>> + git commit -m "commit on default branch in super5" && >>>> + git submodule add ../submodl1b1 submodl1b1 && >>>> + git config -f .gitmodules submodule."submodl1b1".branch b1 && >>>> + git add .gitmodules && >>>> + test_tick && >>>> + git commit -m "add l1 module with branch b1 in super5" && >> >> now we do this again without the nested submodule, just one repo >> as a submodule? > > My intention was to have super5 -> submodl1b1@b1 -> submodl2b2@b2 on > the "server" side. > But are you saying I just implemented super5 -> sbmodl1b1@master due > to the previous master checkout in submodl1b1? No. I was a little confused about the code. > >>>> + git submodule init submodl1b1 && >>>> + git clone super5 super && >> >> does super exist here already? (I did not check, but IIRC >> super and super{1-4} are there as we count upwards to >> find a name that is ok. > > I created it in the first step of the test with the intention to have > super5 as the "server" and "super" as the client clone. oh, ok. > >> >>>> + ( >>>> + cd super && >>>> + git submodule update --recursive --init >>>> + ) && >>>> + ( >>>> + cd submodl1b1 && >>>> + git rev-parse --verify HEAD >../../actuall1 && >>>> + test_cmp ../../expectl1 ../../actuall1 >>>> + ) && >>>> + ( >>>> + cd submodl2b2 && >>>> + git rev-parse --verify HEAD >../../../actuall2 && >>>> + test_cmp ../../../expectl2 ../../../actuall2 >>>> + ) > > As a general idea for a test, does it look sane? Yes, I think it is a sane approach. Thanks for writing such a test! > Do you think I should I start with a just one level of submodule with > a non-default branch (super -> l1@b1), or it this OK? > In my view, having 2 levels makes sure the recursive part is also > addressed and verified. I totally agree. Stefan
