Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > +test_expect_success 'push --atomic also prevents branch creation, reports collateral' ' > + # Setup upstream repo - empty for now > + d=$HTTPD_DOCUMENT_ROOT_PATH/atomic-branches.git && > + git init --bare "$d" && > + test_config -C "$d" http.receivepack true && > + up="$HTTPD_URL"/smart/atomic-branches.git && > + > + # Tell up about two branches for now -ECANTPARSE "Tell up" part. > + test_commit atomic1 && > + test_commit atomic2 && > + git branch collateral && > + git push "$up" master collateral && OK, so an initially empty directory $d that appears to network clients as $up now has two branches, 'master' and 'collateral', both pointing at the same history that ends with two commits, atomic2 whose parent is atomic1. > + # collateral is a valid push, but should be failed by atomic push > + git checkout collateral && > + test_commit collateral1 && > + > + # Make master incompatible with upstream to provoke atomic > + git checkout master && > + git reset --hard HEAD^ && collateral grows, master rewinds. > + # Add a new branch which should be failed by atomic push. This is a > + # regression case. > + git branch atomic && Another branch atomic is added > + # --atomic should cause entire push to be rejected > + test_must_fail git push --atomic "$up" master atomic collateral 2>output && Attempt to push all three: collateral alone would be OK, so is atomic, but because master rewinds, we expect none of the three to go through. > + # the new branch should not have been created upstream > + test_must_fail git -C "$d" rev-parse refs/heads/atomic && The new branch should not have been created; if this rev-parse succeeded, it would be a bug. Up to point, I have no possible improvements to offer ;-) Very well done. > + # the failed refs should be indicated > + grep "master -> master" output | grep rejected && I'd rather see the effect, i.e. what the command did that can be observed externally, than the report, i.e. what the command claims to have done, if it is equally straight-forward to verify either. That can be done by making sure that the output from "git -C "$d" rev-parse refs/heads/master" match output from "git rev-parse atomic2", no? That ensures 'master' in the receiving end stayed the same. > + # the collateral failure refs should be indicated > + grep "atomic -> atomic" output | grep "atomic push failed" && > + grep "collateral -> collateral" output | grep "atomic push failed" Likewise for the other two. FWIW, these three can further lose a process each, i.e. grep "^ ! .*rejected.* master -> master" output even if we for some reason do not want to check the effect and take the claim by the command being tested at the face value (which I do not think is a good idea). Thanks.
