On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 7:53 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:37 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > >> > +test_expect_success 'push with @' ' > >> > + > >> > + mk_test testrepo heads/master && > >> > + git checkout master && > >> > + git push testrepo @ && > >> > + check_push_result testrepo $the_commit heads/master > >> > + > >> > +' > >> > >> This is OK, but shouldn't this be placed before the tests with > >> various configuration? Something along the lines of the attached, > >> but with the body of the loop properly reindented, would also give > >> us a better test coverage at the same time. > > > > I don't see much value in those tests, since I don't see how if one > > passes another one would fail. But I guess it cannot hurt. > > That can only be said based on the knowledge of the implementation > detail of the code immediately after this patch gets applied. Any > future change to the code for whatever reason (e.g. refactoring) can > make the current assumption invalid. It's not just the current implementation of the code; it's any implementation of the code (in my opinion). > As the proposed log message says, > > Since commit 9ba89f484e git learned how to push to a remote branch using > the source @, for example: > > git push origin @:$dst > > However, if the right-hand side is missing, the push fails: > > git push origin @ > > we care about both of these forms working, not just the singleton > form, so it is not just "not hurt", but is actively a good thing, to > protect both forms from future breakage. After all, that is why we > have tests. Both forms were already tested. What you suggested adds three more tests: 3. +@ form, 4. @ not present on the remote, 5. @ in remote.*.push. If the first two pass, I cannot see any implementation that would fail the other three (okay, maybe the +@ one). Anyway, I had to improve the current tests to make your suggestion work, and what once was a single simple patch now became a series that is mostly shuffling around test code. At some point the aphorism "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" has to apply though. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras
