On Tue, Sep 07 2021, Taylor Blau wrote: > Now that we both can propagate values from the hashcache, and respect > the configuration to enable the hashcache at all, test that both of > these function correctly by hardening their behavior with a test. > > Signed-off-by: Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > t/t5326-multi-pack-bitmaps.sh | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/t/t5326-multi-pack-bitmaps.sh b/t/t5326-multi-pack-bitmaps.sh > index 4ad7c2c969..24148ca35b 100755 > --- a/t/t5326-multi-pack-bitmaps.sh > +++ b/t/t5326-multi-pack-bitmaps.sh > @@ -283,4 +283,36 @@ test_expect_success 'pack.preferBitmapTips' ' > ) > ' > > +test_expect_success 'hash-cache values are propagated from pack bitmaps' ' > + rm -fr repo && > + git init repo && > + test_when_finished "rm -fr repo" && It seems the need for this "rm -fr repo" dance instead of just relying on test_when_finished "rm -rf repo" is because of a 3x tests in a function in tb/multi-pack-bitmaps that should probably be combined into one, i.e. they share the same logical "repo" setup. > + ( > + cd repo && > + > + git config pack.writeBitmapHashCache true && s/git config/test_config/, surely.
