On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 15:19:00 -0700 Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > +test_expect_success 'not writing gitmodules config file when it is not checked out' ' > > + test_must_fail git -C super submodule--helper config submodule.submodule.url newurl > > This only checks the exit code, do we also want to check for > > test_path_is_missing .gitmodules ? > OK, I agree, let's re-check also *after* we tried and failed to set a config value, just to be sure that the code does not get accidentally changed in the future to create the file. I'll add the check. > > +test_expect_success 'initialising submodule when the gitmodules config is not checked out' ' > > + git -C super submodule init > > +' > > + > > +test_expect_success 'showing submodule summary when the gitmodules config is not checked out' ' > > + git -C super submodule summary > > +' > > Same for these, is the exit code enough, or do we want to look at > specific things? > Except for the "summary" test which was not even exercising the config_from_gitmodule path, checking exist status should be sufficient to verify that "submodule--helper config" does not fail, but we can surely do better. I will add checks to confirm that not only the commands exited without errors but they also achieved the desired effect, to validate the actual high-level use case advertised by the test file. This should be more future-proof. And I think I'll merge the summary and the update tests. > > + > > +test_expect_success 'updating submodule when the gitmodules config is not checked out' ' > > + (cd submodule && > > + echo file2 >file2 && > > + git add file2 && > > + git commit -m "add file2 to submodule" > > + ) && > > + git -C super submodule update > > git status would want to be clean afterwards? Mmh, this should have been "submodule update --remote" in the first place to have any effect, I'll take the chance and rewrite this test in a different way and also check the effect of the update operation, and the repository status. I'll be something like this: ORIG_SUBMODULE=$(git -C submodule rev-parse HEAD) ORIG_UPSTREAM=$(git -C upstream rev-parse HEAD) ORIG_SUPER=$(git -C super rev-parse HEAD) test_expect_success 're-updating submodule when the gitmodules config is not checked out' ' test_when_finished "git -C submodule reset --hard $ORIG_SUBMODULE; git -C upstream reset --hard $ORIG_UPSTREAM; git -C super reset --hard $ORIG_SUPER; git -C upstream submodule update --remote; git -C super pull; git -C super submodule update --remote" && (cd submodule && echo file2 >file2 && git add file2 && test_tick && git commit -m "add file2 to submodule" ) && (cd upstream && git submodule update --remote && git add submodule && test_tick && git commit -m "Update submodule" ) && git -C super pull && # The --for-status options reads the gitmdoules config git -C super submodule summary --for-status >actual && cat >expect <<-\EOF && * submodule 951c301...a939200 (1): < add file2 to submodule EOF test_cmp expect actual && # Test that the update actually succeeds test_path_is_missing super/submodule/file2 && git -C super submodule update && test_cmp submodule/file2 super/submodule/file2 && git -C super status --short >output && test_must_be_empty output ' Maybe a little overkill? The "upstream" repo will be added in test 1 to better clarify the roles of the involved repositories. The commit ids should be stable because of test_tick, shouldn't they? Thanks for the comments, they helped improving the quality of the tests once again. I'll wait a few days before sending a v7, hopefully someone will find time to take another look at patch 9 and comment also on patch 10, and give an opinion on the "mergeability" status of the whole patchset. Ciao ciao, Antonio -- Antonio Ospite https://ao2.it https://twitter.com/ao2it A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
