> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 11:16 PM
> To: Keller, Jacob E <jacob.e.keller@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] name-rev: test showing failure with non-monotonic commit
> dates
>
>
> Shorter & avoids the needless subshell as:
>
> git init repo &&
> test_commit -C repo --date="2020-01-01 18:00" A &&
> test_commit -C repo --date="2020-01-02 18:00" B &&
> [...]
>
>
Sure. I can pick these improvements up if if we end up actually wanting the test case. I think we're still discussing the core problem in this thread too.
> > +test_expect_failure 'name-rev commit timestamp prevents naming commits' '
> > + (
> > + cd non-monotonic &&
> > +
> > + B=$(git rev-parse main~3) &&
> > +
> > + echo "$B main~3" >expect &&
> > + git name-rev $B >actual &&
> > +
> > + test_cmp expect actual
> > + )
> > +'
>
> I haven't checked, but is the explicit peeling to $B really needed here,
> are the results different with a main~3 or main~3^{commit}?
>
> I.e. the first column of the output will of course be, but will the
> result on the second column? I suspect not, but haven't run this. In any
> case I tihnk teh test/commit message could do with an explanation.
>
The first column is the commit id, so we need to get that either way to compare the expected and actual output. As far as I know passing "main~3" instead of the commit id to name-rev doesn't change this.
Thanks,
Jake
