On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 06:47:23AM +0700, Adrian Wijaya wrote: > [...] Thanks, and welcome to the Git community. The patch looks pretty good to me. A few minor nits: > Subject: Re: [GSOC][PATCH 2/2] t1300: replace "test -f" into "test_path_is_file" The subject says 2/2, but I think there is only one patch. :) Looks like you used send-email; the --cover-letter option is probably what you wanted to generate the first message. Though for a single-patch series, I'd generally suggest just sending one email total, and putting any comments below the "---" line (which would then not be included in the commit message). The general form of the subject line looks good, and follows our conventions. I'd suggest s/into/with/ in the subject line as a minor English fixup. We'd often assume the maintainer will just fix up something small like that while applying (or if he doesn't, that it's not too big a deal). But since the point of the microproject is to get comfortable with the patch submission process, maybe it would be good practice for you to fix it up yourself (using "commit --amend" or "rebase -i") and re-send (try git-send-email's "-v" option). > Replace "test -f" into "test_path_is_file" to give more verbose > test output. Same s/into/with/ here, too (or perhaps s/Replace/Convert/). Maybe worth saying "to give more verbose test output on failure", though now I am really nit-picking (sorry, you avoided so many of the usual first-time-patch pitfalls I have to stretch :) ). > Signed-off-by: Adrian Wijaya <adrianwijaya100@xxxxxxxxx> > --- You remembered your signoff. Good. > diff --git a/t/t1300-config.sh b/t/t1300-config.sh > index 97ebfe1f9d..d74554fc09 100755 > --- a/t/t1300-config.sh > +++ b/t/t1300-config.sh > @@ -1020,11 +1020,11 @@ test_expect_success SYMLINKS 'symlinked configuration' ' > ln -s notyet myconfig && > git config --file=myconfig test.frotz nitfol && > test -h myconfig && > - test -f notyet && > + test_path_is_file notyet && And the patch itself looks obviously correct. The "test -h" in the context sticks out now, but we don't have a test_path_is_symlink(). I think adding it goes beyond the scope of this patch, and beyond what's needed for a microproject. But if you or anybody wants to add it (modeled after test_path_is_file), it seems like a reasonable thing for us to have. -Peff
