Re: [PATCH] t3419: prevent failure when run with EXPENSIVE

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 2:39 PM brian m. carlson
<sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> This test runs a function which itself runs several assertions.  The
> last of these assertions cleans up the .git/rebase-apply directory,
> since when run with EXPENSIVE set, the function is invoked a second time
> to run the same tests with a larger data set.
>
> However, as of 2ac0d6273f ("rebase: change the default backend from "am"
> to "merge"", 2020-02-15), the default backend of rebase has changed, and
> cleaning up the rebase-apply directory has no effect: it no longer
> exists, since we're using rebase-merge instead.
>
> Since we don't really care which rebase backend is in use, let's just
> clean up both, which means we'll do the right thing in every case.
>
> Signed-off-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> I noticed this when I was working on another series and running the
> testsuite with GIT_TEST_LONG=1.  We'll probably want to add this before
> the release if possible.
>
> It may also be desirable to have at least once CI run that runs this
> way.  In my experience, it does not take substantially longer to run the
> testsuite on a modern Linux system with this option enabled.
>
>  t/t3419-rebase-patch-id.sh | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/t/t3419-rebase-patch-id.sh b/t/t3419-rebase-patch-id.sh
> index 94552669ae..824d84f9ce 100755
> --- a/t/t3419-rebase-patch-id.sh
> +++ b/t/t3419-rebase-patch-id.sh
> @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ do_tests () {
>                 git commit -q -m squashed &&
>                 git checkout -q other^{} &&
>                 test_must_fail git rebase squashed &&
> -               rm -rf .git/rebase-apply
> +               rm -rf .git/rebase-merge .git/rebase-apply
>         '
>  }

Good catch, thanks.  Perhaps we just want to invoke 'git rebase
--quit' and let it clean up instead of manually doing so ourselves,
since it may buy us some future-proofing in case we ever want to move
the place we store rebase state?



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux