On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 19:59, Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Charvi > > On 20/01/2021 12:31, Charvi Mendiratta wrote: > > Hi Phillip, > > > > On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 16:34, Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >>> [...] > >>> Similarly, if we have sequence like `fixup -c`, `fixup -c`, `fixup -c` > >>> then also it will fixup > >>> up all the content and here it allow user to edit the message, so > >>> opens the editor once > >> > >> It is good that we only open the editor once in this case - I'd not > >> thought about chains of `fixup -c` before reading this. Do we have a > >> test to verify that the editor is only opened once? > >> > > > > No, we don't. But I also agree, it's a good idea to add a test for it. > > I think may be one sequence with 'fixup -C', 'fixup -c', 'fixup -c' > > and the other 'squash' , 'fixup -C', 'fixup -c', is sufficient for > > testing. > > Those are both good sequences to test. I think we should check 'fixup > -c' 'fixup' as well - with 'squash' 'fixup' we open the editor after the > fixup so the user can see all the changes that will be committed when > they edit the message, we should do the same for 'fixup -c' 'fixup'. > Also 'fixup -c' 'squash' might be worth testing as well. > Agree, I will add these two test cases also and send the next revision of patches. Thanks for reviews! Thanks and Regards, Charvi
