On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 5:10 PM Denton Liu <liu.denton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Before, in t2018, if do_checkout failed to create `branch2`, the next
> test-case would run `git branch -D branch2` but then fail because it was
> expecting `branch2` to exist, even though it doesn't. As a result, an
> early failure could cause a cascading failure of tests.
>
> Make test-case responsible for cleaning up their own branches so that
> future tests can start with a sane environment.
>
> Signed-off-by: Denton Liu <liu.denton@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> diff --git a/t/t2018-checkout-branch.sh b/t/t2018-checkout-branch.sh
> @@ -60,38 +60,36 @@ test_expect_success 'setup' '
> test_expect_success 'checkout -b to a new branch, set to HEAD' '
> + test_when_finished test_might_fail git branch -D branch2 &&
> + test_when_finished git checkout branch1 &&
I'm aware that when-finished actions fire in reverse order but the
inherent subtlety of ordering of these two invocations still caught me
off-guard for a moment since they are reverse the order in which one
logically thinks about the actions which need to be performed. I
wonder if it would be easier to digest if written like this:
test_when_finished '
git checkout branch1 &&
test_might_fail git branch -D branch2
' &&
(Probably not worth a re-roll.)
