From: Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx>
I had long since forgotten the idea behind this test and why it failed,
and took a little while to figure it out. To prevent others from having
to spend a similar time on it, add an explanation in the comments.
However, the reasoning in the explanation makes me question why I
considered it a failure at all. I'm not sure if I had a better reason
when I originally wrote it, but for now just add commentary about the
possible expectations and why it behaves the way it does right now.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx>
---
t/t6423-merge-rename-directories.sh | 8 ++++++++
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
diff --git a/t/t6423-merge-rename-directories.sh b/t/t6423-merge-rename-directories.sh
index bd0f17a3be..2b4a482277 100755
--- a/t/t6423-merge-rename-directories.sh
+++ b/t/t6423-merge-rename-directories.sh
@@ -2843,6 +2843,14 @@ test_expect_success '9f: Renamed directory that only contained immediate subdirs
# Commit A: priority/{alpha,bravo}/$more_files
# Commit B: goal/{a,b}/$more_files, goal/c
# Expected: priority/{alpha,bravo}/$more_files, priority/c
+# We currently fail this test because the directory renames we detect are
+# goal/a/ -> priority/alpha/
+# goal/b/ -> priority/bravo/
+# We do not detect
+# goal/ -> priority/
+# because of no files found within goal/, and the fact that "a" != "alpha"
+# and "b" != "bravo". But I'm not sure it's really a failure given that
+# viewpoint...
test_setup_9g () {
test_create_repo 9g &&
--
gitgitgadget
