On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 5:05 AM Sebastian Staudt <koraktor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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: > > > 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? I have no objections to using suffix "(dirty)". It's true that there are a few duplicate test titles due to check_describe() invocations, however, this patch isn't introducing any new callers, so it's not strictly a concern of this series. If you did want to address that issue, one possibility would be to add a 'title' argument to check_describe() and adjust callers to use a unique title, however, such a change would not be part of this particular patch, and I'm not convinced that it's even worth the effort and churn at this point.
