Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 11:37 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> > +test_expect_success 'branch --delete --force removes dangling branch' ' >>> > + test_when_finished "rm -f .git/refs/heads/dangling" && >>> > + echo $ZERO_OID >.git/refs/heads/dangling && >>> > + git branch --delete --force dangling && >>> > + test_path_is_missing .git/refs/heads/dangling >>> > +' >>> >>> This goes against the spirit of the series merged at c9780bb2 (Merge >>> branch 'hn/prep-tests-for-reftable', 2021-07-13). >>> >>> Can we creat the dangling ref and test the lack of "dangling" ref in >>> the end in a less transparent way? >> >> agreed. Try the ref-store test-helper's update-ref command? > > I thought the approach taken by dc474899 (t4202: mark bogus head > hash test with REFFILES, 2021-05-31) to hide it behind a > prerequisite was good enough, but if we can ensure the same > behaviour under the reftable backend, that is even better. > > Thanks. Having said that, there are a few observations to make about this test script. * It is hopefully becoming harder and harder to check for behaviour in broken repositories in a "portable" way, simply because we are making it harder to corrupt repository. We hopefully won't point a ref to point at a missing object, we hopefully won't prune an object away that is still pointed at by a ref, etc. * This script to test "branch" is full of tests that rely on direct manipulation of .git/refs/ filesystem hierarchy. For these two reasons, it probably is OK to accept this patch as-is and leave the "clean-up" to a later follow-on series, that would cover both "what's our recommended approach to 'corrupt' the test repository so that we can use different ref (and other) backends?" and "make sure the tests in the script are happy with both ref backends." issues. Thanks.
