Jeff King wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 12:53:11AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Jeff King wrote:
>>> @@ -155,8 +155,14 @@ test_expect_success 'fsck detects symlinked .gitmodules file' '
>>> {
>>> printf "100644 blob $content\t$tricky\n" &&
>>> printf "120000 blob $target\t.gitmodules\n"
>>> - } >bad-tree &&
>>> - tree=$(git mktree <bad-tree) &&
>>> + } >bad-tree
>>> + ) &&
>>> + tree=$(git -C symlink mktree <symlink/bad-tree)
>>> +'
>>
>> This is super nitpicky, but: test scripts can be hard to maintain when
>> there's this kind of state carried from assertion to assertion without
>> it being made obvious.
>>
>> Can this include "setup" or "set up" in the name to do that? E.g.
>>
>> test_expect_success 'set up repo with symlinked .gitmodules file' '
>> ...
>> '
>
> Hmph. I specifically _tried_ to do that by breaking it into a separate
> test with the name "create" in it, which I thought was one of the
> code-words for "I'm doing stuff that will be used in another test". But
> I guess there's no official rule on that. I dug up:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/git/20130826173501.GS4110@xxxxxxxxxx/
>
> but I guess I mis-remembered "create" being present there.
I can try to find some time today to introduce a test_setup helper.
Having to figure out and rely on this kind of ad hoc convention is not
something I really want to ask of patch authors and reviewers.
The reason I find "set up" clearer than "create" is that the latter is
something I can easily imagine myself genuinely wanting to test. "Set
up for a later test" is more explicit about what the commands are
being run for.
Jonathan
