Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 4:39 PM Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 7:32 PM Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 6:59 PM Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > > On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 12:27 PM Glen Choo <chooglen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > > > +test_expect_success 'rebase when inside worktree subdirectory' ' >> > > > + git init main-wt && >> > > > + ( >> > > > + cd main-wt && >> > > > + git commit --allow-empty -m "initial" && >> > > > + # create commit with foo/bar/baz >> > > > + mkdir -p foo/bar && >> > > > + touch foo/bar/baz && >> > > > + git add foo/bar/baz && >> > > > + git commit -m "add foo/bar/baz" && >> > > > + # create commit with a/b/c >> > > > + mkdir -p a/b && >> > > > + touch a/b/c && >> > > > + git add a/b/c && >> > > > + git commit -m "add a/b/c" && >> > >> > This is entirely minor, but all the inner subshells in this test are >> > superfluous. [...] >> >> One other minor comment: If the file's timestamp has no significance >> to the test, then our style is to create the file with `>` rather than >> `touch`, so: >> >> ... && >> >foo/bar/baz && >> ... >> >a/b/c && >> ... > > Ah, good point. And while at it, we can replace the touch/add/commit > sequence with a simple test_commit call. Yes, thanks for pointing that out - I had copied my reproduction script into the test case without paying enough attention.
