On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 4:26 PM Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The commit 40ce4160 "format-patch: allow --range-diff to apply to > a lone-patch" added the ability to see a range-diff as commentary > after the commit message of a single patch series (i.e. [PATCH] > instead of [PATCH X/N]). However, this functionality was not > covered by a test case. > > Add a simple test case that checks that a range-diff is written as > commentary to the patch. > > Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > diff --git a/t/t3206-range-diff.sh b/t/t3206-range-diff.sh > @@ -154,4 +154,9 @@ do > +test_expect_success 'format-patch --range-diff as commentary' ' > + git format-patch --stdout --range-diff=HEAD~1 HEAD~1 >actual && > + grep -A 1 -e "\-\-\-" actual | grep "Range-diff:" > +' Aside from Junio's and Stefan's comments... Patch 6/14 [1], in addition to checking that a solo patch contains an interdiff, takes the extra step of checking that individual patches _don't_ contain an interdiff when --cover-letter is used. I wonder if the same should be done here, though I don't feel too strongly about it. If you do go that route, it might make sense to move this test to t4014 as neighbor to the --interdiff tests. The reason 10/14 [2] added the "git format-patch --range-diff" test to t3206 instead of t4014 was so it could do a thorough check of the embedded range-diff by re-using the specially crafted test repo set up by t3206. Your new test is much looser, thus could be moved alongside the --interdiff tests. Not a big deal, though. Either way is fine. Thanks for working on this. [1]: https://public-inbox.org/git/20180722095717.17912-7-sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ [2]: https://public-inbox.org/git/20180722095717.17912-11-sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
