On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 06:34:07PM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote: > 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.) This sounds like a good idea. If Junio doesn't get around to it, I'll send a v1.5 of this patch later. Thanks for the suggestion!
