On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 3:17 PM Christian Couder
<christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 1:47 PM ZheNing Hu via GitGitGadget
> <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > +batch_test_atom() {
> > + if test "$3" = "fail"
> > + then
> > + test_expect_${4:-success} $PREREQ "basic atom: $1 $2 must fail" "
> > + test_must_fail git cat-file --batch-check='$2' >bad <<-EOF
> > + $1
> > + EOF
> > + "
> > + else
> > + test_expect_${4:-success} $PREREQ "basic atom: $1 $2" "
> > + git for-each-ref --format='$2' $1 >expected &&
> > + git cat-file --batch-check='$2' >actual <<-EOF &&
> > + $1
> > + EOF
> > + sanitize_pgp <actual >actual.clean &&
> > + cmp expected actual.clean
> > + "
> > + fi
> > +}
>
> I wonder if the above function and some of the tests below could be
> introduced in a preparatory patch before this one. It could help check
> that reusing ref-filter doesn't change the behavior with some atoms
> that were previously supported or rejected. Of course if some atoms
> are now failing or are now supported, then it's ok to add new tests
> for these atoms in this patch.
For example maybe some of the tests could be introduced earlier when
the reject_atom() function is introduced.
