Am Fr., 1. Feb. 2019 um 21:12 Uhr schrieb Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 8:55 AM Sebastian Staudt <koraktor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > We don't use NEED_WORK_TREE when running the git-describe builtin, > > since you should be able to describe a commit even in a bare repository. > > However, the --dirty flag does need a working tree. Since we don't call > > setup_work_tree(), it uses whatever directory we happen to be in. That's > > unlikely to match our index, meaning we'd say "dirty" even when the real > > working tree is clean. > > [...] > > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Staudt <koraktor@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > diff --git a/t/t6120-describe.sh b/t/t6120-describe.sh > > @@ -145,14 +145,38 @@ check_describe A-* HEAD > > +test_expect_success 'describe --dirty with --work-tree' ' > > + [...] > > +' > > > > +test_expect_success 'describe --dirty with --work-tree' ' > > + [...] > > +' > > Can you give these two new tests different titles to make it easier to > narrow down a problem to one or the other if one of them does fail? > Perhaps the second test could be titled: > > test_expect_success 'describe --dirty with dirty --work-tree' ' > > or something. Thanks, didn‘t notice this. I‘d use a suffix (dirty) for my test titles. But this won‘t work for tests using check_describe(). Any objections?
