2018-04-05 0:41 GMT+03:00 Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Eddy Petrișor <eddy.petrisor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>> you plan to later submit as one patch including both the change as well as
>>> the test.
>>
>> Yes,
I did not forget about having a single patch. Will do it once the
details are ironed out.
>>>>> + 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.
Actually you were 100% correct. In order to link to submodl1b1@b1 I
had to move the master branch checkout after the submobl2@b2 is added.
Otherwise the submodule is added with the last commit on master, not
the last one on b1 an b2, respectively.
I suspect that in the tests, because the "server side" repos are
local, the git fetch-by-sha1/cloning by hash will be done correctly,
without the need of a branch hint, but the problem will still exist
for servers such as github which do not support fetch-by-sha1.
In case I realize that a server-side repo that doesn't support
fetch-by-sha1 is needed, is there a mechanism to set that up in the
test case, or do I have to rethink my approach?
>>>>> + 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.
After using test_pause I realized 'super' is left over by some other
test cases, so in my v4 (unjustifibly) long series I switch to using
super_w because I was getting all sorts of issues and wanted to not
interfere with the other tests.
>> 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!
OK, thanks for the feedback.
>> 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.
--
Eddy Petrișor
