On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 5:28 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 27 2021, Han-Wen Nienhuys via GitGitGadget wrote: > > > From: Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > This is more explicit, and reduces the depency between test functions. It also > > is more amenable to use with reftable, which has no concept of (non)existence of > > a reflog > > Sounds good in principle, but: > > > @@ -94,9 +94,7 @@ test_expect_success 'prune: prune unreachable heads' ' > > test_expect_success 'prune: do not prune detached HEAD with no reflog' ' > > git checkout --detach --quiet && > > git commit --allow-empty -m "detached commit" && > > - # verify that there is no reflogs > > - # (should be removed and disabled by previous test) > > - test_path_is_missing .git/logs && > > + git reflog expire --all && > > git prune -n >prune_actual && > > test_must_be_empty prune_actual > > ' > > Isn't the point of the existing test to check that there isn't an > existing reflog, not to just expire it if we find it, or does expire > --all return non-zero if none was found ? no. it's verifying that the cross-test behavior is working as intended. The real objective is to make sure there is no reflog. Clarified commit msg. > > @@ -104,6 +102,7 @@ test_expect_success 'prune: do not prune detached HEAD with no reflog' ' > > test_expect_success 'prune: prune former HEAD after checking out branch' ' > > head_oid=$(git rev-parse HEAD) && > > git checkout --quiet main && > > + git reflog expire --all && > > git prune -v >prune_actual && > > grep "$head_oid" prune_actual > > ' > > Just skimming this I'm perplexed why this needs expiring now, as opposed > to being s/file/command/ changes like the rest... explained in the commit msg. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - Google Munich I work 80%. Don't expect answers from me on Fridays. -- Google Germany GmbH, Erika-Mann-Strasse 33, 80636 Munich Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891 Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg Geschäftsführer: Paul Manicle, Halimah DeLaine Prado
