On Thu, Nov 19 2020, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi Ævar, > > On Wed, 18 Nov 2020, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 18 2020, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote: >> >> > From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx> >> > >> > The `onbranch` test cases in question do not actually want to include >> > anything; Instead, they want to verify that the `onbranch` code path >> > does not regress in the early-config case or in the non-Git case, where >> > the `onbranch` include is actually ignored. >> >> It's unclear to me what this patch is for & why it's needed. > > Well, the entire idea of switching to a new default branch name is to > avoid using words that we know cause undue emotional harm. In the grand > scheme, therefore, I want to avoid having any mention of such words in our > test suite. I meant why there were two conflicting patches on-list that changed the same hunks in different ways, both of which resulted in passing tests and seemingly fulfilled the goal you're noting here. Later you sent a v3 of the main series, which clarified this question: https://public-inbox.org/git/pull.762.v3.git.1605743086.gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx/ >> Yesterday in your v2 27/27 series you sent a different one that changed >> this from s/master/main/g: >> https://lore.kernel.org/git/b8fa037791683b50c3efb01aa6ac0d3f7b888a2b.1605629548.git.gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx/ >> >> That's on top of "next", but this one is on "master", the two would >> conflict, and the 02/27 one seems like the right thing to do. > > Yeah, I hadn't made it clear yet at the time you wrote this that my > intention was to give in to your and Junio's suggestion to restrict the > `GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME` assignments to _just_ the test > scripts that don't work with arbitrary default branch names. > > I had hoped that mentioning gitgitgadget PR 762 (which is that 27-strong > patch series) would be indicator enough that I was in the process of > revamping it into a v3, and that this here patch is one part that I > separated out into its own patch. > >> > Therefore, the actual branch name does not matter at all. We might just >> > as well avoid racially-charged names here. >> >> It seems to me the actual name matters a lot, and it must whatever the >> default branch name is. > > Nope. Not at all. Because what we're exercising is the code paths when we > _don't_ have a branch name to work with. > > In the non-Git case, this is trivial to see. There is not even a > repository! How can there be a branch? > > In the early config case, it is too early to access the refs. I meant to > reference (but forgot) the commit 85fe0e800ca (config: work around bug > with includeif:onbranch and early config, 2019-07-31) because that > commit's commit message describes the catch-22 that is the reason why the > early config cannot see the current branch name (if any). > > I should probably have thought of referencing 22932d9169f (config: stop > checking whether the_repository is NULL, 2019-08-06) for the second test > case, too. > > So again, these two test cases do _not_ exercise the code path where > another config file is included. To the contrary, they try to prevent a > regression where `onbranch` would segfault in one case, and BUG in the > other (in both cases because the now-fixed code used to try to look at the > current branch name _anyway_). > >> I.e. what the test is doing is producing intentionally broken config, >> and asserting that we don't read it at an early stage. >> >> Therefore if we regressed and started doing that the test wouldn't catch >> it, because the default branch name is "master", or "main" if/when that >> refs.c change lands, neither of which is "topic". > > No, if we regressed, the code would start to throw a BUG, or a segfault, > respectively. > > We never expect these two test cases to look at any branch name at all. Thanks. I mis(understood|read) it.
