On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 12:35:10PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > The new tests say they may fail with "-L and --follow being > incompatible" instead of "-L and pathspec being imcompatible". > Currently the expected failure can come only from the latter, but > this is to futureproof them, in case we decide to add code to > explicititly die on -L and --follow used together. This explanation makes sense (though s/imcompat/incompat/). > +test_expect_success 'basic command line parsing' ' > + # This may fail due to "no such path a.c in commit", or > + # "-L is incompatible with pathspec", depending on the > + # order the error is checked. Either is acceptable. > + test_must_fail git log -L1,1:a.c -- a.c && > + > + # This must fail due to "-L is incompatible with pathspec". > + test_must_fail git log -L1,1:b.c -- b.c 2>error && > + test_i18ngrep "cannot be used with pathspec" error && The renaming makes sense... > + > + # Note that incompatibility between -L/--follow is not > + # explicitly checked to avoid redundant code and the comments > + # on the following tests are merely for future-proofing. ...as does this comment to explain the rest of the tests. > + # These must fail due to "follow requires one pathspec", or > + # "-L is incompatible with --follow", depending on the > + # order the error is checked. Either is acceptable. > + test_must_fail git log -L1,1:b.c --follow && > + test_must_fail git log --follow -L1,1:b.c && > + > + # This may fail due to "-L is incompatible with pathspec", or > + # "-L is incompatible with --follow", depending on the > + # order the error is checked. Either is acceptable. > + test_must_fail git log --follow -L1,1:b.c -- b.c > +' Though "depending on the order" is a bit of a fiction, because those checks do not exist at all. I'm OK with it because the earlier comment explains what is going. I guess: # This may fail due to "-L is incompatible with pathspec", or # "-L is incompatible with --follow". We don't have the latter as of # the writing of this test, but either would be acceptable if we added # it. would be an alternative. I doubt it's worth spending too much time polishing. -Peff
